Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] memfd:add MEMFD_NOEXEC_SEAL documentation

2024-05-23 Thread Jeff Xu
Hi Aleksa On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:39 PM wrote: > > From: Jeff Xu > > Add documentation for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu > --- > Documentation/userspace-api/index.rst | 1 + > Documentation/userspace-api/mfd_noexec.rst | 90

[PATCH v2 1/2] memfd: fix MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to be non-sealable by default

2024-05-23 Thread jeffxu
From: Jeff Xu By default, memfd_create() creates a non-sealable MFD, unless the MFD_ALLOW_SEALING flag is set. When the MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL flag is initially introduced, the MFD created with that flag is sealable, even though MFD_ALLOW_SEALING is not set. This patch changes MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to be

[PATCH v2 2/2] memfd:add MEMFD_NOEXEC_SEAL documentation

2024-05-23 Thread jeffxu
From: Jeff Xu Add documentation for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu --- Documentation/userspace-api/index.rst | 1 + Documentation/userspace-api/mfd_noexec.rst | 90 ++ 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+) create mode

[PATCH v2 0/2] memfd: fix MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to be non-sealable

2024-05-23 Thread jeffxu
From: Jeff Xu By default, memfd_create() creates a non-sealable MFD, unless the MFD_ALLOW_SEALING flag is set. When the MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL flag is initially introduced, the MFD created with that flag is sealable, even though MFD_ALLOW_SEALING is not set. This patch changes MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL to be

[PATCH bpf-next v4 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add post_connect_cb callback

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang For getting rid of the second parameter of do_test(), this patch adds a new callback post_connect_cb in struct network_helper_opts, it will be invoked after connect_fd_to_addr() in connect_to_fd_opts(). Then define a dctcp dedicated post_connect_cb callback, invoking

[PATCH bpf-next v4 5/6] selftests/bpf: Use connect_to_fd_opts in do_test in bpf_tcp_ca

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang This patch uses connect_to_fd_opts() instead of using connect_fd_to_fd() and settcpca() in do_test() in prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c to accept a struct network_helper_opts argument. Then define a dctcp dedicated post_socket_cb callback stg_post_socket_cb(), invoking both cc_cb()

[PATCH bpf-next v4 4/6] selftests/bpf: Use start_server_str in bpf_tcp_ca

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang This patch uses new helper start_server_str() in do_test() in bpf_tcp_ca.c to accept a struct network_helper_opts argument instead of using start_server() and settcpca(). Then change the type of the first paramenter of do_test() into a struct network_helper_opts one. Define

[PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] selftests/bpf: Add start_server_str helper

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang It's a tech debt that start_server() does not take the "opts" argument. It's pretty handy to have start_server() as a helper that takes string address. So this patch creates a new helper start_server_str(). Then start_server() can be a wrapper of it. Signed-off-by: Geliang

[PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] selftests/bpf: Use post_socket_cb in connect_to_fd_opts

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang Since the post_socket_cb() callback is added in struct network_helper_opts, it's make sense to use it not only in __start_server(), but also in connect_to_fd_opts(). Then it can be used to set TCP_CONGESTION sockopt. Add a "void *" type member cb_opts into struct

[PATCH bpf-next v4 1/6] selftests/bpf: Drop struct post_socket_opts

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang It's not possible to have one generic/common "struct post_socket_opts" for all tests. It's better to have the individual test define its own callback opts struct. So this patch drops struct post_socket_opts, and changes the second parameter of post_socket_cb as "void *" type.

[PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] use network helpers, part 5

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang This patchset uses post_socket_cb and post_connect_cb callbacks of struct network_helper_opts to refactor do_test() in bpf_tcp_ca.c to move dctcp test dedicated code out of do_test() into test_dctcp(). v4: - address Martin's comments in v3 (thanks). - drop 2 patches, keep

Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release_pages()

2024-05-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:40:25 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > > You have sta...@vger.kernel.org in the mail headers, so I assume you're > > proposing this for backporting. When doing this, please include > > > > Cc: > > > > in the changelog footers and also include a Fixes: target. I'm > >

[PATCH 0/2] selftest: rtc: Add rtc feature detection and rtc file check

2024-05-23 Thread Joseph Jang
1. In order to make rtctest more explicit and robust, we propose to use RTC_PARAM_GET ioctl interface to check rtc alarm feature state before running alarm related tests. 2. The rtctest requires the read permission on /dev/rtc0. The rtctest will be skipped if the /dev/rtc0 is not readable.

[PATCH 2/2] selftest: rtc: Check if could access /dev/rtc0 before testing

2024-05-23 Thread Joseph Jang
The rtctest requires the read permission on /dev/rtc0. The rtctest will be skipped if the /dev/rtc0 is not readable. Reviewed-by: Koba Ko Reviewed-by: Matthew R. Ochs Signed-off-by: Joseph Jang --- tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c | 11 ++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1

[PATCH 1/2] selftest: rtc: Add to check rtc alarm status for alarm related test

2024-05-23 Thread Joseph Jang
In alarm_wkalm_set and alarm_wkalm_set_minute test, they use different ioctl (RTC_ALM_SET/RTC_WKALM_SET) for alarm feature detection. They will skip testing if RTC_ALM_SET/RTC_WKALM_SET ioctl returns an EINVAL error code. This design may miss detecting real problems when the efi.set_wakeup_time()

[PATCH] selftests/uprobes: Add a basic uprobe testcase

2024-05-23 Thread Masami Hiramatsu (Google)
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) Add a basic uprobe testcase which checks whether add/remove/trace operations works on /bin/sh. Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) --- .../ftrace/test.d/dynevent/add_remove_uprobe.tc| 26 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) create

Re: [PATCH] tracing/selftests: Run the ownership test twice

2024-05-23 Thread Google
On Thu, 23 May 2024 12:45:41 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" > > A regression happened where running the ownership test passes on the first > iteration but fails running it a second time. This was caught and fixed, > but a later change brought it back. The

Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] selftests/resctrl: Calculate resctrl FS derived mem bw over sleep(1) only

2024-05-23 Thread Reinette Chatre
Hi Ilpo, On 5/20/24 5:30 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: For MBM/MBA tests, measure_vals() calls get_mem_bw_imc() that performs the measurement over a duration of sleep(1) call. The memory bandwidth numbers from IMC are derived over this duration. The resctrl FS derived memory bandwidth, however, is

Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal

2024-05-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:32:26 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:52:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:46:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:19 + jef...@chromium.org wrote: > > > > > > > This patchset proposes a new

Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal

2024-05-23 Thread Kees Cook
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:52:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:46:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:19 + jef...@chromium.org wrote: > > > > > This patchset proposes a new mseal() syscall for the Linux kernel. > > > > I have not moved this

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread Barnabás Pőcze
2024. május 23., csütörtök 22:44 keltezéssel, Jeff Xu írta: > Hi Barnabás > > Is that OK that I work on V2 ? It will be based on your V1 change and > I will also add more test cases. Sure, please go ahead. At the very end of this letter you'll find the commit message that I would have sent in

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread Jeff Xu
Hi Barnabás Is that OK that I work on V2 ? It will be based on your V1 change and I will also add more test cases. Thanks -Jeff - On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:45 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 22 May 2024 19:32:35 -0700 Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > > > > It's a change to a userspace API, yes?

Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release_pages()

2024-05-23 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 23.05.24 21:13, Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 23 May 2024 01:39:05 -0500 Donet Tom wrote: Commit 1b151e2435fc ("block: Remove special-casing of compound pages") caused a change in behaviour when releasing the pages if the buffer does not start at the beginning of the page. This was because

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 22 May 2024 19:32:35 -0700 Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > It's a change to a userspace API, yes? Please let's have a detailed > > description of why this is OK. Why it won't affect any existing users. > > > Unfortunately, this is a breaking change that might break a > application if they do

Re: [PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release_pages()

2024-05-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 23 May 2024 01:39:05 -0500 Donet Tom wrote: > Commit 1b151e2435fc ("block: Remove special-casing of compound > pages") caused a change in behaviour when releasing the pages > if the buffer does not start at the beginning of the page. This > was because the calculation of the number of

Re: [PATCH v5 02/68] kselftest: Desecalate reporting of missing _GNU_SOURCE

2024-05-23 Thread Shuah Khan
On 5/23/24 12:12, Edward Liaw wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:02 AM Shuah Khan wrote: On 5/22/24 20:28, John Hubbard wrote: On 5/22/24 10:46 AM, Edward Liaw wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:21 AM Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:56:48AM +, Edward Liaw wrote: ... You've

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/8] selftests/bpf: Drop type parameter of start_server_addr

2024-05-23 Thread Martin KaFai Lau
On 5/22/24 2:23 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_assign.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_assign.c index 0b9bd1d6f7cc..517d1186e386 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_assign.c +++

Re: [PATCH v5 02/68] kselftest: Desecalate reporting of missing _GNU_SOURCE

2024-05-23 Thread Edward Liaw
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:02 AM Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 5/22/24 20:28, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 5/22/24 10:46 AM, Edward Liaw wrote: > >> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:21 AM Mark Brown wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:56:48AM +, Edward Liaw wrote: > > ... > >>> You've not provided a

Re: [PATCH v5 00/68] Define _GNU_SOURCE for sources using

2024-05-23 Thread Shuah Khan
On 5/22/24 17:36, Shuah Khan wrote: On 5/22/24 17:32, patchwork-bot+linux-ri...@kernel.org wrote: Hello: This series was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes) by Tejun Heo : Hi Tejun, I noticed you weren't on the email I sent in response. Please drop this series. There is simpler fix to the

Re: [PATCH v5 02/68] kselftest: Desecalate reporting of missing _GNU_SOURCE

2024-05-23 Thread Shuah Khan
On 5/22/24 20:28, John Hubbard wrote: On 5/22/24 10:46 AM, Edward Liaw wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:21 AM Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:56:48AM +, Edward Liaw wrote: ... You've not provided a Signed-off-by for this so people can't do anything with it, please see

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread Jeff Xu
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 9:20 AM Jeff Xu wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 1:24 AM David Rheinsberg wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 4:25 AM, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > > 2024. május 23., csütörtök 1:23 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton > > > írta: > > >> It's a change to a userspace

[PATCH] tracing/selftests: Run the ownership test twice

2024-05-23 Thread Steven Rostedt
From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" A regression happened where running the ownership test passes on the first iteration but fails running it a second time. This was caught and fixed, but a later change brought it back. The regression was missed because the automated tests only run the tests once

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread Jeff Xu
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 1:24 AM David Rheinsberg wrote: > > Hi > > On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 4:25 AM, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > 2024. május 23., csütörtök 1:23 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton > > írta: > >> It's a change to a userspace API, yes? Please let's have a detailed > >> description of why

[PATCH][next][V2] selftests: kvm: fix shift of 32 bit unsigned int more than 32 bits

2024-05-23 Thread Colin Ian King
Currrentl a 32 bit 1u value is being shifted more than 32 bits causing overflow and incorrect checking of bits 32-63. Fix this by using the BIT_ULL macro for shifting bits. Detected by cppcheck: sev_init2_tests.c:108:34: error: Shifting 32-bit value by 63 bits is undefined behaviour

Re: [PATCH][next] selftests: kvm: fix shift of 32 bit unsigned int more than 32 bits

2024-05-23 Thread Colin King (gmail)
On 23/05/2024 16:35, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:38:02PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: Currrentl a 32 bit 1u value is being shifted more than 32 bits causing overflow and incorrect checking of bits 32-63. Fix this by using the BIT_ULL macro for shifting bits. Detected by

Re: [PATCH][next] selftests: kvm: fix shift of 32 bit unsigned int more than 32 bits

2024-05-23 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:38:02PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: > Currrentl a 32 bit 1u value is being shifted more than 32 bits causing > overflow and incorrect checking of bits 32-63. Fix this by using the > BIT_ULL macro for shifting bits. > > Detected by cppcheck: > sev_init2_tests.c:108:34:

Re: [PATCH v3 13/29] riscv mmu: write protect and shadow stack

2024-05-23 Thread Alexandre Ghiti
Hi Deepak, On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:32 PM Deepak Gupta wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 06:31:24PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > >On 04/04/2024 01:35, Deepak Gupta wrote: > >>`fork` implements copy on write (COW) by making pages readonly in child > >>and parent both. > >> >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

2024-05-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 06:45:33PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote: > Hi Linus, > > Thank you for your reply and valuable inputs. > > On 01/03/2024 17:10, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 02:27, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > > > > > > I agree, it's hard to imagine even a simple majority

[PATCH][next] selftests: kvm: fix shift of 32 bit unsigned int more than 32 bits

2024-05-23 Thread Colin Ian King
Currrentl a 32 bit 1u value is being shifted more than 32 bits causing overflow and incorrect checking of bits 32-63. Fix this by using the BIT_ULL macro for shifting bits. Detected by cppcheck: sev_init2_tests.c:108:34: error: Shifting 32-bit value by 63 bits is undefined behaviour

Re: [PATCH RESEND 6.6.y] kselftest: Add a ksft_perror() helper

2024-05-23 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 05:56:28PM +, Edward Liaw wrote: > From: Mark Brown > > [ Upstream commit 907f33028871fa7c9a3db1efd467b78ef82cce20 ] > > The standard library perror() function provides a convenient way to print > an error message based on the current errno but this doesn't play

[PATCH][next] selftests: mqueue: initialize array buf before using it

2024-05-23 Thread Colin Ian King
Currently array buf is not being initialized and so garbage values on the stack are being used in the mq_send calls. Initialize the values in the array to zero. Cleans up cppcheck warning: mq_perf_tests.c:334:25: error: Uninitialized variable: buff [uninitvar] Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King ---

Re: [PATCH net] testing: net-drv: use stats64 for testing

2024-05-23 Thread patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Hello: This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main) by Paolo Abeni : On Mon, 20 May 2024 23:58:43 + you wrote: > Testing a network device that has large numbers of bytes/packets may > overflow. Using stats64 when comparing fixes this problem. > > I tripped on this while iterating on a

Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

2024-05-23 Thread David Rheinsberg
Hi On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 4:25 AM, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > 2024. május 23., csütörtök 1:23 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton > írta: >> It's a change to a userspace API, yes? Please let's have a detailed >> description of why this is OK. Why it won't affect any existing users. > > Yes, it is a

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use prog_attach_type to attach in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
This patch is "Rejected", according to Jakub's comments: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87zfsiw3a3@cloudflare.com/ Thanks, -Geliang On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 18:08 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > From: Geliang Tang > > Since prog_attach_type[] array is defined, it makes sense to use it > paired >

[PATCH bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: Drop duplicate bpf_map_lookup_elem in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang bpf_map_lookup_elem is invoked in bpf_prog3() already, no need to invoke it again. This patch drops it. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_kern.h | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH bpf-next 7/8] selftests/bpf: Check length of recv in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang The value of recv in msg_loop may be negative, like EWOULDBLOCK, so it's necessary to check if it is positive before accumulating it to bytes_recvd. Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests") Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang ---

[PATCH bpf-next 6/8] selftests/bpf: Fix size of map_fd in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang The array size of map_fd[] is 9, not 8. This patch changes it as a more general form: ARRAY_SIZE(map_fd). Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

[PATCH bpf-next 5/8] selftests/bpf: Drop prog_fd array in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang The program fds can be got by using bpf_program__fd(progs[]), then prog_fd becomes useless. This patch drops it. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH bpf-next 4/8] selftests/bpf: Replace tx_prog_fd with tx_prog in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang bpf_program__attach_sockmap() needs to take a parameter of type bpf_program instead of an fd, so tx_prog_fd becomes useless. This patch uses a pointer tx_prog to point to an item in progs[] array. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c |

[PATCH bpf-next 3/8] selftests/bpf: Use bpf_link attachments in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang Switch attachments to bpf_link using bpf_program__attach_sockmap() instead of bpf_prog_attach(). This patch adds a new array progs[] to replace prog_fd[] array, set in populate_progs() for each program in bpf object. And another new array links[] to save the attached

[PATCH bpf-next 2/8] selftests/bpf: Drop duplicate definition of i in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang There's already a definition of i in run_options() at the beginning, no need to define a new one in "if (tx_prog_fd > 0)" block. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

[PATCH bpf-next 1/8] selftests/bpf: Fix tx_prog_fd values in test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang The values of tx_prog_fd in run_options() should not be 0, so set it as -1 in else branch, and test it using "if (tx_prog_fd > 0)" condition, not "if (tx_prog_fd)" or "if (tx_prog_fd >= 0)". Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 6

[PATCH bpf-next 0/8] fixes for test_sockmap

2024-05-23 Thread Geliang Tang
From: Geliang Tang This patchset contains some fixes and improvements for test_sockmap. 3-5: switching attachments to bpf_link as Jakub suggested in [1]. 1-2, 6-8: Small fixes. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87zfsiw3a3@cloudflare.com/ Geliang Tang (8): selftests/bpf: Fix tx_prog_fd

[PATCH] selftest: mm: Test if hugepage does not get leaked during __bio_release_pages()

2024-05-23 Thread Donet Tom
Commit 1b151e2435fc ("block: Remove special-casing of compound pages") caused a change in behaviour when releasing the pages if the buffer does not start at the beginning of the page. This was because the calculation of the number of pages to release was incorrect. This was fixed by commit

Re: [PATCH net-next v9 11/14] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

2024-05-23 Thread David Wei
On 2024-05-10 16:21, Mina Almasry wrote: > +/* On error, returns the -errno. On success, returns number of bytes sent to > the > + * user. May not consume all of @remaining_len. > + */ > +static int tcp_recvmsg_dmabuf(struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb, > +