On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:06 PM Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 01:05:19PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 8:29???PM Al Viro [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

The bpf changes look ok and Andrii's approach is easier to grasp.
It's better to route bpf conversion to CLASS(fd,..) via bpf-next,
so it goes through bpf CI and our other testing.

bpf patches don't seem to depend on newly added CLASS(fd_pos, ...
and fderr, so pretty much independent from other patches.

Representation change and switch to accessors do matter, though.
OTOH, I can put just those into never-rebased branch (basically,
"introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it" +
"struct fd representation change" + possibly "add struct fd constructors,
get rid of __to_fd()", for completeness sake), so you could pull it.
Otherwise you'll get textual conflicts on all those f.file vs. fd_file(f)...

Yep, makes sense. Let's do that, we can merge that branch into
bpf-next/master and I will follow up with my changes on top of that.

Let's just drop the do_one_ldimm64() extraction, and keep fdput(f)
logic, plus add fd_file() accessor changes. I'll then add a switch to
CLASS(fd) after a bit more BPF-specific clean ups. This code is pretty
sensitive, so I'd rather have all the non-trivial refactoring done
separately. Thanks!

Done (#stable-struct_fd);

great, thanks, I'll look at this tomorrow

BTW, which tree do you want "convert __bpf_prog_get()
to CLASS(fd)" to go through?

So we seem to have the following for BPF-related stuff:

[PATCH 16/39] convert __bpf_prog_get() to CLASS(fd, ...)

This looks to be ready to go in.

[PATCH 17/39] bpf: resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(): take handling of a single
ldimm64 insn into helper

This one I'd like to rework differently and land it through bpf-next.

[PATCH 18/39] bpf maps: switch to CLASS(fd, ...)

This one touches __bpf_map_get() which I'm going to remove or refactor
as part of the abovementioned refactoring, so there will be conflicts.

[PATCH 19/39] fdget_raw() users: switch to CLASS(fd_raw, ...)

This one touches a bunch of cases across multiple systems, including
BPF's kernel/bpf/bpf_inode_storage.c.


So how about this. We take #16 as is through bpf-next, change how #17
is done, take 18 mostly as is but adjust as necessary. As for #19, if
you could split out changes in bpf_inode_storage.c to a separate
patch, we can also apply it in bpf-next as one coherent set. I'll send
all that as one complete patch set for you to do the final review.

WDYT?