On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:08 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/29/21 1:59 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 1/28/21 12:28 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > >>> Those hooks run as BPF_CGROUP_RUN_SA_PROG_LOCK and operate on > >>> a locked socket. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> net/core/filter.c | 4 ++++ > >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg4_prog.c | 5 +++++ > >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg6_prog.c | 5 +++++ > >>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > >>> index ba436b1d70c2..e15d4741719a 100644 > >>> --- a/net/core/filter.c > >>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c > >>> @@ -7023,6 +7023,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT: > >>> + case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG: > >>> + case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME: > >>> @@ -7039,6 +7041,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT: > >>> + case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG: > >>> + case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG: > >>> case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME: > >> > >> Looks good overall, also thanks for adding the test cases! I was about to apply, but noticed one > >> small nit that would be good to get resolved before that. Above you now list all the attach hooks > >> for sock_addr ctx, so we should just remove the whole switch that tests on prog->expected_attach_type > >> altogether in this last commit. > > Sure, I can resend tomorrow. > > But do you think it's safe and there won't ever be another sock_addr > > hook that runs with an unlocked socket? > > Ok, that rationale seems reasonable to keep the series as is. It probably makes sense to add a > small comment at least to the commit log to explain the reasoning, I can do so while applying. > So no need for v3, thanks! Sounds good, thank you!
