> On 03/20/2017 10:37 AM, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index ebaeaf2..389cb8d 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static void sk_filter_release_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> > */
> > static void sk_filter_release(struct sk_filter *fp)
> > {
> > - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&fp->refcnt))
> > + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&fp->refcnt))
> > call_rcu(&fp->rcu, sk_filter_release_rcu);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -943,20 +943,27 @@ void sk_filter_uncharge(struct sock *sk, struct
> sk_filter *fp)
> > /* try to charge the socket memory if there is space available
> > * return true on success
> > */
> > -bool sk_filter_charge(struct sock *sk, struct sk_filter *fp)
> > +bool __sk_filter_charge(struct sock *sk, struct sk_filter *fp)
>
> And this then becomes: static bool __sk_filter_charge(...)
Ups, I guess I am getting too tired of all these patch sendings, so more and
more mistakes slide in.
Will try switching to smth else to get attention back in order.
>
> > {
> > u32 filter_size = bpf_prog_size(fp->prog->len);
> >
> > /* same check as in sock_kmalloc() */
> > if (filter_size <= sysctl_optmem_max &&
> > atomic_read(&sk->sk_omem_alloc) + filter_size <
> sysctl_optmem_max) {
> > - atomic_inc(&fp->refcnt);
> > atomic_add(filter_size, &sk->sk_omem_alloc);
> > return true;
> > }
> > return false;
> > }
>
> Since here is just all in slow-path, looks fine to me if the above
> is addressed as well in v3:
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
>
> Please make sure you add [PATCH net-next] in your subject in future
> so that it's clear which tree this goes to.
Thank you very much! Will do.
Best Regards,
Elena.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
