On 06/06/2019 02:13 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>
tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c | 5 -
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
>>> Should the bpf.h sync to tools/ be in a separate patch?
>>
>> I was thinking about it, but c
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> >> tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c | 5 -
> >> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
> > Should the bpf.h sync to tools/ be in a separate patch?
>
> I was thinking about it, but concluded for such small change, it's not
> really worth
On 06/06/2019 01:54 AM, Martin Lau wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:40:49PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> Intention of cgroup bind/connect/sendmsg BPF hooks is to act transparently
>> to applications as also stated in original motivation in 7828f20e3779 ("Merge
>> branch 'bpf-cgroup-bind-conn
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:40:49PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Intention of cgroup bind/connect/sendmsg BPF hooks is to act transparently
> to applications as also stated in original motivation in 7828f20e3779 ("Merge
> branch 'bpf-cgroup-bind-connect'"). When recently integrating the latter
>
Intention of cgroup bind/connect/sendmsg BPF hooks is to act transparently
to applications as also stated in original motivation in 7828f20e3779 ("Merge
branch 'bpf-cgroup-bind-connect'"). When recently integrating the latter
two hooks into Cilium to enable host based load-balancing with Kubernetes
