On 7/16/25 9:16 AM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_dynptr_from_skb_meta(struct __sk_buff *skb, u64 flags,
+ struct bpf_dynptr *ptr__uninit)
+{
+ return dynptr_from_skb_meta(skb, flags, ptr__uninit, false);
+}
+
__bpf_kfunc int bpf_dynptr_from_xdp(struct xdp_md *x, u64 flags,
struct bpf_dynptr *ptr__uninit)
{
@@ -12165,8 +12190,15 @@ int bpf_dynptr_from_skb_rdonly(struct __sk_buff *skb, u64 flags,
return 0;
}
+int bpf_dynptr_from_skb_meta_rdonly(struct __sk_buff *skb, u64 flags,
+ struct bpf_dynptr *ptr__uninit)
+{
+ return dynptr_from_skb_meta(skb, flags, ptr__uninit, true);
+}
+
BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_kfunc_check_set_skb)
BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_dynptr_from_skb, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_dynptr_from_skb_meta, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
I looked at the high level of the set. I have a quick question.
Have you considered to create another bpf_kfunc_check_set_xxx that is only for
the tc and tracing prog type? No need to expose this kfunc to other prog types
if the skb_meta is not available now at those hooks.
It seems patch 5 is to ensure other prog types has meta_len 0 and some of the
tests are to ensure that the other prog types cannot do useful things with the
new skb_meta kfunc. The tests will also be different eventually when the
skb_meta can be preserved beyond tc.
