On 9/10/26 8:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c index 2a84f9d01131..cae43b999162 100644 --- a/net/core/filter.c +++ b/net/core/filter.c @@ -12913,8 +12913,9 @@ __bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); * @sock: Pointer to socket to be destroyed * * Return: - * On error, may return EPROTONOSUPPORT, EINVAL. - * EPROTONOSUPPORT if protocol specific destroy handler is not supported. + * On error, may return EOPNOTSUPP, or whatever the protocol specific + * destroy handler returns. + * EOPNOTSUPP if protocol specific destroy handler is not supported. * 0 otherwise */ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_sock_destroy(struct sock_common *sock) @@ -12926,8 +12927,12 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_sock_destroy(struct sock_common *sock) * Supporting protocols will need to acquire sock lock in the BPF context * prior to invoking this kfunc. */ - if (!sk->sk_prot->diag_destroy || (sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_TCP && - sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_UDP)) + if (!sk->sk_prot->diag_destroy) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + if (sk_fullsock(sk) && + sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_TCP && + sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_UDP) return -EOPNOTSUPP; return sk->sk_prot->diag_destroy(sk, ECONNABORTED);This isn't a bug, but would it help to keep the TCP/UDP rationale comment next to the protocol check, and add a short note that sk_protocol is only valid on full socks? The block comment explaining the locking semantics and TCP/UDP restriction now sits two statements away from the protocol test it documents, and the newly added sk_fullsock() guard doesn't have any nearby note explaining why it's there. The reason (sk_protocol is a struct sock member not present in sock_common) is only in the changelog.
Current commit message is enough. That's why we encourage high quality commit message.
