Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] bpf: enable bpf_{g,s}etsockopt in BPF_CGROUP_UDP{4,6}_RECVMSG

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

 



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!



[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