I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:14:56PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote: >> This adds a bpf helper that's similar to the skb_in_cgroup helper to check >> whether the probe is currently executing in the context of a specific >> subset of the cgroupsv2 hierarchy. It does this based on membership test >> for a cgroup arraymap. It is invalid to call this in an interrupt, and >> it'll return an error. The helper is primarily to be used in debugging >> activities for containers, where you may have multiple programs running in >> a given top-level "container". >> >> Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sar...@sargun.me> >> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org> >> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> >> Cc: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> >> --- >> + /** >> + * bpf_current_task_under_cgroup(map, index) - Check cgroup2 >> membership of current task >> + * @map: pointer to bpf_map in BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_ARRAY type >> + * @index: index of the cgroup in the bpf_map >> + * Return: >> + * == 0 current failed the cgroup2 descendant test >> + * == 1 current succeeded the cgroup2 descendant test >> + * < 0 error >> + */ >> + BPF_FUNC_current_task_under_cgroup, > .. >> case BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_ARRAY: >> - if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_skb_in_cgroup) >> + if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_skb_in_cgroup && >> + func_id != BPF_FUNC_current_task_under_cgroup) >> goto error; > ... >> + case BPF_FUNC_current_task_under_cgroup: >> case BPF_FUNC_skb_in_cgroup: > > Tejun, > do you feel strongly about 'under' ? > It just looks inconsistent vs existing skb_in_cgroup... > "in cgroup" - 4k google hits > "under cgroup" - 2k google hits >
