On 11/14/2016 06:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:49:49AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 11/14/2016 03:49 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:43:41AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 751e806..a0fca9f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -682,6 +682,17 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_add(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_prog_add);
+void bpf_prog_sub(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i)
+{
+ /* Only to be used for undoing previous bpf_prog_add() in some
+ * error path. We still know that another entity in our call
+ * path holds a reference to the program, thus atomic_sub() can
+ * be safely used in such cases!
+ */
+ WARN_ON(atomic_sub_return(i, &prog->aux->refcnt) == 0);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_prog_sub);
the patches look good. I'm only worried about net/net-next merge
conflict here. (I would have to deal with it as well).
So instead of copying the above helper can we apply net-next's
'bpf, mlx4: fix prog refcount in mlx4_en_try_alloc_resources error path'
patch to net without mlx4_xdp_set hunk and then apply
the rest of this patch?
Even better is to send this patch 2/3 to net-next?
yes, it's an issue, but very small one. There is no security
concern here, so I would prefer to avoid merge conflict.
Did you do a test merge of net/net-next by any chance?
Yes, I did a test merge and git resolved the above just fine w/o
any conflicts. I have no strong opinion whether net or net-next.
If preferred, I can just resend this series in the evening against
net-next instead, perhaps that's a bit better.
I have slight preference to go via net-next, but since it merges fine,
I don't mind net route too.
Ok, I'll rebase for net-next then.
