Re: [PATCH net-next] net: switch to storing KCOV handle directly in sk_buff
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-11-25 20:43:32
Also in:
linux-wireless, lkml
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:34:36 +0100 Marco Elver wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c index ffe3dcc0ebea..070b1077d976 100644 --- a/net/core/skbuff.c +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c@@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_mask, skb->end = skb->tail + size; skb->mac_header = (typeof(skb->mac_header))~0U; skb->transport_header = (typeof(skb->transport_header))~0U; + skb_set_kcov_handle(skb, kcov_common_handle()); /* make sure we initialize shinfo sequentially */ shinfo = skb_shinfo(skb);@@ -249,9 +250,6 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_mask, fclones->skb2.fclone = SKB_FCLONE_CLONE; } - - skb_set_kcov_handle(skb, kcov_common_handle());
Why the move?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
out: return skb; nodata:@@ -285,8 +283,6 @@ static struct sk_buff *__build_skb_around(struct sk_buff *skb, memset(shinfo, 0, offsetof(struct skb_shared_info, dataref)); atomic_set(&shinfo->dataref, 1); - skb_set_kcov_handle(skb, kcov_common_handle()); - return skb; }
And why are we dropping this? If this was omitted in earlier versions it's just a independent bug, I don't think build_skb() will call __alloc_skb(), so we need a to set the handle here.