On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:35:05 -0700, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:16:46 -0700, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > > @@ -385,6 +386,14 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > > __u64 flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > > + str
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jakub Kicinski
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:16:46 -0700, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> > @@ -385,6 +386,14 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > __u64 flags;
> > };
> >
> > + struct { /* struct used by BPF_MAP_DUMP command */
> > + __u3
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:16:46 -0700, Brian Vazquez wrote:
> @@ -385,6 +386,14 @@ union bpf_attr {
> __u64 flags;
> };
>
> + struct { /* struct used by BPF_MAP_DUMP command */
> + __u32 map_fd;
There is a hole here, perhaps flags don't have t
This introduces a new command to retrieve a variable number of entries
from a bpf map wrapping the existing bpf methods:
map_get_next_key and map_lookup_elem
Note that map_dump doesn't guarantee that reading the entire table is
consistent since this function is always racing with kernel and user c
4 matches
Mail list logo