Jason Xing wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 9:24 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Jason Xing wrote:
> > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Use the offset to record the delta value between current socket key
> > > and bpf socket key.
> > >
> > > 1. If there is only bpf feature running, the socket key is bpf socket
> > > key and the offset is zero;
> > > 2. If there is only traditional feature running, and then bpf feature
> > > is turned on, the socket key is still used by the former while the offset
> > > is the delta between them;
> > > 3. if there is only bpf feature running, and then application uses it,
> > > the socket key would be re-init for application and the offset is the
> > > delta.
> >
> > We need to also figure out the rare conflict when one user sets
> > OPT_ID | OPT_ID_TCP while the other only uses OPT_ID.
>
> I think the current patch handles the case because:
> 1. sock_calculate_tskey_offset() gets the final key first whether the
> OPT_ID_TCP is set or not.
> 2. we will use that tskey to calculate the delta.
Oh yes of course. Great, then this is resolved.
> > > +static long int sock_calculate_tskey_offset(struct sock *sk, int val, int bpf_type)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 tskey;
> > > +
> > > + if (sk_is_tcp(sk)) {
> > > + if ((1 << sk->sk_state) & (TCPF_CLOSE | TCPF_LISTEN))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP)
> > > + tskey = tcp_sk(sk)->write_seq;
> > > + else
> > > + tskey = tcp_sk(sk)->snd_una;
> > > + } else {
> > > + tskey = 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (bpf_type && (sk->sk_tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID)) {
> > > + sk->sk_tskey_bpf_offset = tskey - atomic_read(&sk->sk_tskey);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + } else if (!bpf_type && (sk->sk_tsflags_bpf & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID)) {
> > > + sk->sk_tskey_bpf_offset = atomic_read(&sk->sk_tskey) - tskey;
> > > + } else {
> > > + sk->sk_tskey_bpf_offset = 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return tskey;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > int sock_set_tskey(struct sock *sk, int val, int bpf_type)
> > > {
> > > u32 tsflags = bpf_type ? sk->sk_tsflags_bpf : sk->sk_tsflags;
> > > @@ -901,17 +944,13 @@ int sock_set_tskey(struct sock *sk, int val, int bpf_type)
> > >
> > > if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID &&
> > > !(tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID)) {
> > > - if (sk_is_tcp(sk)) {
> > > - if ((1 << sk->sk_state) &
> > > - (TCPF_CLOSE | TCPF_LISTEN))
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > - if (val & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP)
> > > - atomic_set(&sk->sk_tskey, tcp_sk(sk)->write_seq);
> > > - else
> > > - atomic_set(&sk->sk_tskey, tcp_sk(sk)->snd_una);
> > > - } else {
> > > - atomic_set(&sk->sk_tskey, 0);
> > > - }
> > > + long int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = sock_calculate_tskey_offset(sk, val, bpf_type);
> > > + if (ret <= 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + atomic_set(&sk->sk_tskey, ret);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -956,10 +995,15 @@ static int sock_set_timestamping_bpf(struct sock *sk,
> > > struct so_timestamping timestamping)
> > > {
> > > u32 flags = timestamping.flags;
> > > + int ret;
> > >
> > > if (flags & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_BPF_SUPPPORTED_MASK)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > + ret = sock_set_tskey(sk, flags, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags_bpf, flags);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> >
> > I'm a bit hazy on when this can be called. We can assume that this new
> > BPF operation cannot race with the existing setsockopt nor with the
> > datapath that might touch the atomic fields, right?
>
> It surely can race with the existing setsockopt.
>
> 1)
> if (only existing setsockopt works) {
> then sk->sk_tskey is set through setsockopt, sk_tskey_bpf_offset is 0.
> }
>
> 2)
> if (only bpf setsockopt works) {
> then sk->sk_tskey is set through bpf_setsockopt,
> sk_tskey_bpf_offset is 0.
> }
>
> 3)
> if (existing setsockopt already started, here we enable the bpf feature) {
> then sk->sk_tskey will not change, but the sk_tskey_bpf_offset
> will be calculated.
> }
>
> 4)
> if (bpf setsockopt already started, here we enable the application feature) {
> then sk->sk_tskey will re-initialized/overridden by
> setsockopt, and the sk_tskey_bpf_offset will be calculated.
> }
>
> Then the skb tskey will use the sk->sk_tskey like before.
I mean race as in the setsockopt and bpf setsockopt and datapath
running concurrently.
As long as both variants of setsockopt hold the socket lock, that
won't happen.
The datapath is lockless for UDP, so atomic_inc sk_tskey can race
with calculating the difference. But this is a known issue. A process
that cares should not run setsockopt and send concurrently. So this is
fine too.
