On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:26 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/25 4:15 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:09 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 7:40 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 1/12/25 3:37 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> >>>> Later, I would introduce three points to report some information
> >>>> to user space based on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> include/net/sock.h | 7 +++++++
> >>>> net/core/sock.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> >>>> index f5447b4b78fd..dd874e8337c0 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> >>>> @@ -2930,6 +2930,13 @@ int sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >>>> struct so_timestamping timestamping);
> >>>>
> >>>> void sock_enable_timestamps(struct sock *sk);
> >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> >>>> +void bpf_skops_tx_timestamping(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int op);
> >>>> +#else
> >>>> +static inline void bpf_skops_tx_timestamping(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int op)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> void sock_no_linger(struct sock *sk);
> >>>> void sock_set_keepalive(struct sock *sk);
> >>>> void sock_set_priority(struct sock *sk, u32 priority);
> >>>> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> >>>> index eae2ae70a2e0..e06bcafb1b2d 100644
> >>>> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> >>>> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> >>>> @@ -948,6 +948,20 @@ int sock_set_timestamping(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> >>>> +void bpf_skops_tx_timestamping(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int op)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct bpf_sock_ops_kern sock_ops;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + memset(&sock_ops, 0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock_ops_kern, temp));
> >>>> + sock_ops.op = op;
> >>>> + if (sk_is_tcp(sk) && sk_fullsock(sk))
> >>>> + sock_ops.is_fullsock = 1;
> >>>> + sock_ops.sk = sk;
> >>>> + __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_sock_ops(sk, &sock_ops, CGROUP_SOCK_OPS);
> >>>
> >>> hmm... I think I have already mentioned it in the earlier revision
> >>> (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/f8e9ab4a-38b9-43a5-aaf4-15f95a3463d0@xxxxxxxxx/).
> >>
> >> Right, sorry, but I deleted it intentionally.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_sock_ops(sk, ...) requires sk to be fullsock.
> >>
> >> Well, I don't understand it, BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS_SK() don't
> >> need to check whether it is fullsock or not.
>
> It is because the callers of BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS_SK guarantees it is
> fullsock.
>
> >>
> >>> Take a look at how BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS does it.
> >>> sk_to_full_sk() is used to get back the listener. For other mini socks,
> >>> it needs to skip calling the cgroup bpf prog. I still don't understand
> >>> why BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS cannot be used here because of udp.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I got lost here. BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS cannot support
> >> udp, right? And I think we've discussed that we have to get rid of the
> >> limitation of fullsock.
>
> It is the part I am missing. Why BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS cannot support
> udp? UDP is not a fullsock?
No, you're not missing anything. UDP is a fullsock and
BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS itself can support udp as my v3 version
used this method already like you suggest. I feel like
misunderstanding what you really suggest. Sorry for the trouble
caused.
I wonder if using is_fullsock would affect/break the usage of fetching
some fields, especially tcp related fields, in
sock_ops_convert_ctx_access()? Sorry that I'm not a bpf expert :(
If not, I will use BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS instead.
Thanks,
Jason
