New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Preparatory refactoring for dynamic BPF map sizing #10957
Conversation
Preparatory refactoring to move map size clamping into a separate function. Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>
test-me-please |
This matches the other map entry size vars and also avoids confusion with the const PolicyMapMax used for upper bound policy map size. Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>
Refactoring in preparation for introducing dynamic map sizes. Also add some tests. Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch>
bd900fe
to
8691c47
Compare
test-me-please EDIT: failure looks like #10942 https://jenkins.cilium.io/job/Cilium-PR-Ginkgo-Tests-Validated/18720/ |
restart-ginkgo |
@tklauser Why are these limits enforced? The underlying maps support __u32 map size. |
@joestringer you mean the upper limits on map sizes? I'm not sure (or can't remember) to be honest. AFAIR, these were defined already before the refactoring and I just refactored the code so the limits could be tested. |
Ah I see, sorry for the noise. I traced back the variable but didn't look so closely at the PR. I guess it's just always been a restriction like that. Thanks 👍 |
Some preparatory refactoring before the next iteration of #10780.
This moves the checking of the map size limits to its own, testable function and adds accompanying tests.
Reviewable by commit.