On 4/5/24 12:43 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/5/24 9:23 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/5/24 8:19 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
Yonghong Song wrote:
Add bpf_link support for sk_msg and sk_skb programs. We have an
internal request to support bpf_link for sk_msg programs so user
space can have a uniform handling with bpf_link based libbpf
APIs. Using bpf_link based libbpf API also has a benefit which
makes system robust by decoupling prog life cycle and
attachment life cycle.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 6 +
include/linux/skmsg.h | 4 +
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 +
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 +
net/core/sock_map.c | 268 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 +
6 files changed, 284 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
LGTM one question below.
+/* Handle the following two cases:
+ * case 1: link != NULL, prog != NULL, old != NULL
+ * case 2: link != NULL, prog != NULL, old == NULL
+ */
+static int sock_map_link_update_prog(struct bpf_link *link,
+ struct bpf_prog *prog,
+ struct bpf_prog *old)
+{
+ const struct sockmap_link *sockmap_link = container_of(link, struct sockmap_link, link);
+ struct bpf_prog **pprog;
+ struct bpf_link **plink;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ mutex_lock(&sockmap_mutex);
+
+ /* If old prog is not NULL, ensure old prog is the same as link->prog. */
+ if (old && link->prog != old) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ /* Ensure link->prog has the same type/attach_type as the new prog. */
+ if (link->prog->type != prog->type ||
+ link->prog->expected_attach_type != prog->expected_attach_type) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ ret = sock_map_prog_lookup(sockmap_link->map, &pprog,
+ sockmap_link->attach_type);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /* Ensure the same link between the one in map and the passed-in. */
+ ret = sock_map_link_lookup(sockmap_link->map, &plink, link, false,
+ sockmap_link->attach_type);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (old) {
+ ret = psock_replace_prog(pprog, prog, old);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ psock_set_prog(pprog, prog);
+
+out:
+ if (!ret) {
+ bpf_prog_inc(prog);
+ old = xchg(&link->prog, prog);
+ bpf_prog_put(old);
Need to check old? I don't think we can clal bpf_prog_put on null?
if (old)
bpf_prog_put(old)
The 'old' here represents the *old* link->prog program and
link->prog should not be NULL at this point.
Ah ok. Maybe instead of using the input old var make it
explicit?
if (!ret) {
struct bpf_prog *old_link;
bpf_prog_inc(prog);
old_link = xchg(&link->prog, prog);
bpf_prog_put(old)
}
Is a bit more obious to me at least. Up to you I have a slight preference
for the explicit more verbose above.
Regarding naming convention, yes, it is hard. My above code similar to
kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c:
static int bpf_netns_link_update_prog(struct bpf_link *link,
struct bpf_prog *new_prog,
struct bpf_prog *old_prog)
{
struct bpf_netns_link *net_link =
container_of(link, struct bpf_netns_link, link);
enum netns_bpf_attach_type type = net_link->netns_type;
struct bpf_prog_array *run_array;
struct net *net;
int idx, ret;
if (old_prog && old_prog != link->prog)
return -EPERM;
...
old_prog = xchg(&link->prog, new_prog);
bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
...
}
The 'old_prog' is reused in the above.
I am okay to change
old = xchg(&link->prog, prog);
to
old_link_prog = xchg(&link->prog, prog);
in next revision (if requested or additional changes needed)
or as a followup.
I'm good with this series as is LGTM. We can do a follow up if we want.
Thanks! Sounds good to me.
Although the xchg is exactly one line above so I'm not sure its even necessary.
the xchg inpsock_set_prog() is used to set prog in pprog. The xchg I added is for
&link->prog. I didn't make a change to psock_set_prog() since it is used
in different places and I do not want to polute it with extra link
parameter.
Otherwise for the series.
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
