On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:15 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/15/25 3:32 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> >> +static bool is_locked_tcp_sock_ops(struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *bpf_sock)
> >> +{
> >> + return bpf_sock->op <= BPF_SOCK_OPS_WRITE_HDR_OPT_CB;
> >
> > I wonder if I can use the code snippets in the previous reply in this
> > thread, only checking if we are in the timestamping callback?
> > +#define BPF_SOCK_OPTS_TS (BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SCHED_OPT_CB | \
> > + BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SW_OPT_CB | \
> > + BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_ACK_OPT_CB | \
> > + BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_TCP_SND_CB)
>
> Note that BPF_SOCK_OPS_*_CB is not a bit.
>
> My understanding is it is a blacklist. Please correct me if I miss-interpret the
> intention.
Yes, blacklist it is.
>
> >
> > Then other developers won't worry too much whether they will cause
> > some safety problems. If not, they will/must add callbacks earlier
> > than BPF_SOCK_OPS_WRITE_HDR_OPT_CB.
>
> It can't be added earlier because it is in uapi. If the future new cb is safe to
> use these helpers, then it needs to adjust the BPF_SOCK_OPS_WRITE_HDR_OPT_CB
> check. is_locked_tcp_sock_ops() is a whitelist. The worst is someone will
> discover the helpers are not usable in the new cb, so no safety issue.
>
> If forgot to adjust the blacklist and the new cb should not use the helpers,
> then it is a safety issue.
>
> Anyhow, I don't have a strong opinion here. I did think about checking the new
> TS callback instead. I went with the simplest way in the code and also
> considering the BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_*_CB is only introduced starting from patch 7.
Got it, I will follow your instructions :)
Thanks,
Jason
