Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/14] net-timestamp: open gate for bpf_setsockopt/_getsockopt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 8:32 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/24 4:05 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > For now, we support bpf_setsockopt to set or clear timestamps flags.
> >
> > Users can use something like this in bpf program to turn on the feature:
> > flags = SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED;
> > bpf_setsockopt(skops, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMPING, &flags, sizeof(flags));
> > The specific use cases can be seen in the bpf selftest in this series.
> >
> > Later, I will support each flags one by one based on this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   include/net/sock.h              |  4 ++--
> >   include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h |  7 +++++++
> >   net/core/filter.c               |  7 +++++--
> >   net/core/sock.c                 | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >   net/ipv4/udp.c                  |  2 +-
> >   net/mptcp/sockopt.c             |  2 +-
> >   net/socket.c                    |  2 +-
> >   7 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> > index 5384f1e49f5c..062f405c744e 100644
> > --- a/include/net/sock.h
> > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> > @@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@ static inline void skb_set_owner_edemux(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sock *sk)
> >   #endif
> >
> >   int sk_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
> > -               sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen);
> > +               sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen, bool bpf_timetamping);
> >   int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int op,
> >                   sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen);
> >   int do_sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
> > @@ -1784,7 +1784,7 @@ int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
> >                      int optname, sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen);
> >
> >   int sk_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
> > -               sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen);
> > +               sockptr_t optval, sockptr_t optlen, bool bpf_timetamping);
> >   int sock_gettstamp(struct socket *sock, void __user *userstamp,
> >                  bool timeval, bool time32);
> >   struct sk_buff *sock_alloc_send_pskb(struct sock *sk, unsigned long header_len,
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
> > index 858339d1c1c4..0696699cf964 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/net_tstamp.h
> > @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ enum {
> >                                        SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | \
> >                                        SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK)
> >
> > +#define SOF_TIMESTAMPING_BPF_SUPPPORTED_MASK (SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE | \
>
> hmm... so we are allowing it but SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE won't do anything
> (meaning set and not-set are both no-op) ?

I was thinking of writing a separate patch to control the output
function by using this flag. Apparently, I didn't do that, so I think
I can remove it from this series.

>
> > +                                           SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SCHED | \
> > +                                           SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE | \
> > +                                           SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_ACK | \
> > +                                           SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID | \
> > +                                           SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP)
> > +
> >   /**
> >    * struct so_timestamping - SO_TIMESTAMPING parameter
> >    *
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index 58761263176c..dc8ecf899ced 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -5238,6 +5238,9 @@ static int sol_socket_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >               break;
> >       case SO_BINDTODEVICE:
> >               break;
> > +     case SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW:
>
> How about only allow bpf_setsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING_NEW) instead of
> bpf_setsockopt(SO_TIMESTAMPING). Does it solve the issue reported in v2?

No, it doesn't. Sorry, I will handle it in a proper way.

>
> > +     case SO_TIMESTAMPING_OLD:
> > +             break;
> >       default:
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> > @@ -5247,11 +5250,11 @@ static int sol_socket_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >                       return -EINVAL;
> >               return sk_getsockopt(sk, SOL_SOCKET, optname,
> >                                    KERNEL_SOCKPTR(optval),
> > -                                  KERNEL_SOCKPTR(optlen));
> > +                                  KERNEL_SOCKPTR(optlen), true);
> >       }
> >
> >       return sk_setsockopt(sk, SOL_SOCKET, optname,
> > -                          KERNEL_SOCKPTR(optval), *optlen);
> > +                          KERNEL_SOCKPTR(optval), *optlen, true);
> >   }
> >
> >   static int bpf_sol_tcp_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index 7f398bd07fb7..7e05748b1a06 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -941,6 +941,19 @@ int sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > +static int sock_set_timestamping_bpf(struct sock *sk,
> > +                                  struct so_timestamping timestamping)
> > +{
> > +     u32 flags = timestamping.flags;
> > +
> > +     if (flags & ~SOF_TIMESTAMPING_BPF_SUPPPORTED_MASK)
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +     WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags_bpf, flags);
>
> I think it is cleaner to directly "WRITE_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags_bpf, flags);" in
> sol_socket_sockopt() instead of adding "bool bpf_timestamping" to sk_setsockopt.
> sk_tsflags_bpf is a separate u32 anyway, so not a lot of code to share. The same
> for getsockopt.

As I replied to Willem, I feel this way (that is also the same as v2)
[1] introduces more extra duplicated code and returns earlier compared
to other use cases of SO_xxx, which do you think is a bit weird?

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241012040651.95616-3-kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx/

Surely, I can write it like how v2 works. Which one would you prefer :) ?

>
> [ will continue the remaining patches a little later ]

Thanks!

Thanks,
Jason





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux