> 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
diff --git i/net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c w/net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c
index 4edd033e899c0..14dd5e3c67402 100644
--- i/net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c
+++ w/net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing, struct bpf_map *,
map, struct sock *, sk,
BPF_CALL_2(bpf_sk_storage_delete_tracing, struct bpf_map *, map,
struct sock *, sk)
{
- if (in_irq() || in_nmi())
+ if (in_nmi())
return -EPERM;
return ____bpf_sk_storage_delete(map, sk);
[...]
