Hello, Alexei.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:21:21AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > lol I should have read the whole thread before replying twice. Sorry
> > about that. Yeah, if we can still rename it, let's do "under". It's
> > more intuitive and gives us the room to implement the real "in"
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:29:35AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > I actually wish we could rename skb_in_cgroup to skb_under_cgroup. If we
> > > ever
> > > introduced a check for absolute membership versus ancestral memb
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:21:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 09:50:48PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
> > far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
>
> So, I think in_cgroup should mean that the
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > I actually wish we could rename skb_in_cgroup to skb_under_cgroup. If we
> > ever
> > introduced a check for absolute membership versus ancestral membership, what
> > would we call that?
>
> That option is, by the way, s
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 09:50:48PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
> far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
So, I think in_cgroup should mean that the object is in that
particular cgroup while under_cgroup in the subhie
On 08/12/2016 09:22 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:16:07AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 08/12/2016 06:50 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
On Thu, Aug 11, 20
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:16:07AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 06:50 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> >I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
> >far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
>
On 08/12/2016 06:50 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:14:56PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
This
I realize that in_cgroup is more consistent, but under_cgroup makes
far more sense to me. I think it's more intuitive.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:14:56PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>> This adds a bpf helper that's similar to the skb_i
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 08:14:56PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> This adds a bpf helper that's similar to the skb_in_cgroup helper to check
> whether the probe is currently executing in the context of a specific
> subset of the cgroupsv2 hierarchy. It does this based on membership test
> for a cgr
This adds a bpf helper that's similar to the skb_in_cgroup helper to check
whether the probe is currently executing in the context of a specific
subset of the cgroupsv2 hierarchy. It does this based on membership test
for a cgroup arraymap. It is invalid to call this in an interrupt, and
it'll retu
11 matches
Mail list logo
