Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: allow __sk_buff tstamp in BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2019-10-15 23:15:06
Also in:
bpf
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:26 PM Stanislav Fomichev [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
It's useful for implementing EDT related tests (set tstamp, run the test, see how the tstamp is changed or observe some other parameter). Note that bpf_ktime_get_ns() helper is using monotonic clock, so for the BPF programs that compare tstamp against it, tstamp should be derived from clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, ...). Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <redacted> --- net/bpf/test_run.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c index 1153bbcdff72..0be4497cb832 100644 --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c@@ -218,10 +218,18 @@ static int convert___skb_to_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct __sk_buff *__skb) if (!range_is_zero(__skb, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, cb) + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct __sk_buff, cb), + offsetof(struct __sk_buff, tstamp))) + return -EINVAL; + + /* tstamp is allowed */ + + if (!range_is_zero(__skb, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, tstamp) + + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct __sk_buff, tstamp),
with no context on this particular change whatsoever: isn't this the same as offsetofend(struct __sk_buff, tstamp)? Same above for cb. Overall, this seems like the 4th similar check, would it make sense to add a static array of ranges we want to check for zeros and just loop over it?..
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
sizeof(struct __sk_buff))) return -EINVAL; skb->priority = __skb->priority; + skb->tstamp = __skb->tstamp; memcpy(&cb->data, __skb->cb, QDISC_CB_PRIV_LEN); return 0;@@ -235,6 +243,7 @@ static void convert_skb_to___skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct __sk_buff *__skb) return; __skb->priority = skb->priority; + __skb->tstamp = skb->tstamp; memcpy(__skb->cb, &cb->data, QDISC_CB_PRIV_LEN); } --2.23.0.700.g56cf767bdb-goog