On 5/28/20 1:01 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> Please cc [email protected] in the future for patches related to BPF
> in general.
added to my script
>
>> include/linux/bpf.h | 5 +++
>> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 +++
>> kernel/bpf/devmap.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> net/core/dev.c | 18 ++++++++
>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 +++
>> 5 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> +static struct xdp_buff *dev_map_run_prog(struct net_device *dev,
>> + struct xdp_buff *xdp,
>> + struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog)
>> +{
>> + u32 act;
>> +
>> + act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(xdp_prog, xdp);
>> + switch (act) {
>> + case XDP_DROP:
>> + fallthrough;
>
> nit: I don't think fallthrough is necessary for cases like:
>
> case XDP_DROP:
> case XDP_PASS:
> /* do something */
>
>> + case XDP_PASS:
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
>> + fallthrough;
>> + case XDP_ABORTED:
>> + trace_xdp_exception(dev, xdp_prog, act);
>> + act = XDP_DROP;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (act == XDP_DROP) {
>> + xdp_return_buff(xdp);
>> + xdp = NULL;
>
> hm.. if you move XDP_DROP case to after XDP_ABORTED and do fallthrough
> from XDP_ABORTED, you won't even need to override act and it will just
> handle all the cases, no?
>
> switch (act) {
> case XDP_PASS:
> return xdp;
> default:
> bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
> fallthrough;
> case XDP_ABORTED:
> trace_xdp_exception(dev, xdp_prog, act);
> fallthrough;
> case XDP_DROP:
> xdp_return_buff(xdp);
> return NULL;
> }
>
> Wouldn't this be simpler?
>
Switched it to this which captures your intent with a more traditional
return location.
act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(xdp_prog, xdp);
switch (act) {
case XDP_PASS:
return xdp;
case XDP_DROP:
break;
default:
bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
fallthrough;
case XDP_ABORTED:
trace_xdp_exception(dev, xdp_prog, act);
break;
}
xdp_return_buff(xdp);
return NULL;