On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:56 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
[...]
>> I'm looking for feedback if there's anything fundamentally wrong with
>> extending SOCKMAP map type like this that I might have missed.
>
> I think this looks good. The main reason I blocked it off before is mostly
> because I had no use-case for it and the complication with what to do with
> child sockets. Clearing the psock state seems OK to me if user wants to
> add it back to a map they can simply grab it again from a sockops
> event.
Thanks for taking a look at the code.
> By the way I would eventually like to see the lookup hook return the
> correct type (PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL) so that the verifier "knows" the type
> and the socket can be used the same as if it was pulled from a sk_lookup
> helper.
Wait... you had me scratching my head there for a minute.
I haven't whitelisted bpf_map_lookup_elem for SOCKMAP in
check_map_func_compatibility so verifier won't allow lookups from BPF.
If we wanted to do that, I don't actually have a use-case for it, I
think would have to extend get_func_proto for SK_SKB and SK_REUSEPORT
prog types. At least that's what docs for bpf_map_lookup_elem suggest:
/* If kernel subsystem is allowing eBPF programs to call this function,
* inside its own verifier_ops->get_func_proto() callback it should return
* bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto, so that verifier can properly check the arguments
*
* Different map implementations will rely on rcu in map methods
* lookup/update/delete, therefore eBPF programs must run under rcu lock
* if program is allowed to access maps, so check rcu_read_lock_held in
* all three functions.
*/
BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_lookup_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
return (unsigned long) map->ops->map_lookup_elem(map, key);
}
-Jakub
