[,,,]
> > + *
> > + * void *bpf_task_storage_get(struct bpf_map *map, void *task, void
> > *value, u64 flags)
> After peeking patch 2, I think the pointer type should be
> "struct task_struct *task" instead of "void *task".
>
> Same for bpf_task_storage_delete().
Done. Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:53 AM KP Singh wrote:
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 4:07 AM KP Singh wrote:
>
> "
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:28 AM Song Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM KP Singh wrote:
> > >
> > > From: KP Singh
> > >
> > > Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
> > > for task_struct.
"
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:28 AM Song Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM KP Singh wrote:
> >
> > From: KP Singh
> >
> > Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
> > for task_struct.
> >
> > The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:12 AM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM KP Singh wrote:
> >
> > From: KP Singh
> >
> > Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
> > for task_struct.
> >
> > The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle
Thanks for taking a look!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index ..774140c458cc
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM KP Singh wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh
>
> Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
> for task_struct.
>
> The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of the
> task_struct. i.e. the storage is destroyed along with the owning
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:17 AM KP Singh wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh
>
> Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
> for task_struct.
>
> The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of the
> task_struct. i.e. the storage is destroyed along with the owning
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index e6ceac3f7d62..bb443c4f3637 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ enum bpf_map_type {
>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:03:13PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> new file mode 100644
> index ..774140c458cc
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
> +//
From: KP Singh
Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets and inodes add local storage
for task_struct.
The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of the
task_struct. i.e. the storage is destroyed along with the owning task
with a callback to the bpf_task_storage_free from the
11 matches
Mail list logo
