On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:41:26PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, at 10:56 AM, Martin Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:19:47PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> >> b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> >> index dd5aedee99e73..9bd47ad2b26f1 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> >> @@ -140,17 +140,18 @@ static void __bpf_selem_unlink_storage(struct
> >> bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> >> {
> >> struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage;
> >> bool free_local_storage = false;
> >> + unsigned long flags;
> >>
> >> if (unlikely(!selem_linked_to_storage(selem)))
> >> /* selem has already been unlinked from sk */
> >> return;
> >>
> >> local_storage = rcu_dereference(selem->local_storage);
> >> - raw_spin_lock_bh(&local_storage->lock);
> >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&local_storage->lock, flags);
> > It will be useful to have a few words in commit message on this change
> > for future reference purpose.
> >
> > Please also remove the in_irq() check from bpf_sk_storage.c
> > to avoid confusion in the future. It probably should
> > be in a separate patch.
>
> Do you mean we allow bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing() and
> bpf_sk_storage_delete_tracing() in irq context? Like
Right.
However, after another thought, may be lets skip that for now
till a use case comes up and a test can be written.
