On 10/31/16 at 11:16am, David Ahern wrote: > On 10/31/16 11:01 AM, David Miller wrote: > > Also, any reason why you don't allow the cgroup bpf sk filter to return > > an error code so that the sock creation could be cancelled if the eBPF > > program desires that? It could be useful, I suppose. > > My first draft at this feature had that but I removed it for simplicity now. > Can certainly add it back.
We're trying to standardize on common return codes for all program types. The lwt bpf series defines BPF_ codes which are compatible with TC_ACT_* values to make lwt_bpf and cls_bpf compatible. Would be great to use the same return codes and implement the ones that make sense.
