On 10/31/16 at 06:16pm, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 10/31/2016 06:05 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > On 10/31/16 11:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > >> Yeah, I'm confused too. I changed that name in my v7 from > >> BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK to BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB on David's > >> (Ahern) request. Why is it now renamed again? > > > > Thomas pushed back on adding another program type in favor of using > > subtypes. So this makes the program type generic to CGROUP and patch > > 2 in this v2 set added Mickaël's subtype patch with the socket > > mangling done that way in patch 3. > > > > Fine for me. I can change it around again.
I would like to hear from Daniel B and Alexei as well. We need to decide whether to use subtypes consistently and treat prog types as something more high level or whether to bluntly introduce a new prog type for every distinct set of verifier limits. I will change lwt_bpf as well accordingly.
