Re: [Patch bpf v3 3/4] net: implement ->sock_is_readable() for UDP and AF_UNIX

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

 



On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:00 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10/2/21 2:37 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Yucong noticed we can't poll() sockets in sockmap even
> > when they are the destination sockets of redirections.
> > This is because we never poll any psock queues in ->poll(),
> > except for TCP. With ->sock_is_readable() now we can
> > overwrite >sock_is_readable(), invoke and implement it for
> > both UDP and AF_UNIX sockets.
> >
> > Reported-by: Yucong Sun <sunyucong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   net/ipv4/udp.c      | 2 ++
> >   net/ipv4/udp_bpf.c  | 1 +
> >   net/unix/af_unix.c  | 4 ++++
> >   net/unix/unix_bpf.c | 2 ++
> >   4 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > index 2a7825a5b842..4a7e15a43a68 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > @@ -2866,6 +2866,8 @@ __poll_t udp_poll(struct file *file, struct socket *sock, poll_table *wait)
> >           !(sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN) && first_packet_length(sk) == -1)
> >               mask &= ~(EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> >
> > +     if (sk_is_readable(sk))
> > +             mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>
> udp_poll() has this extra logic around first_packet_length() which drops all bad csum'ed
> skbs. How does this stand in relation to sk_msg_is_readable()? Is this a concern as well
> there? Maybe makes sense to elaborate a bit more in the commit message for context / future
> reference.

We don't validate UDP checksums on sockmap RX path, so
it is okay to leave it as it is, but it is worth a comment like
you suggest. I will add a comment in this code.

If we really need to validate the checksum, it should be addressed
in a separate patch(set), not in this one.

Thanks.



[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