On 11/2/21 7:23 PM, zhudi (E) wrote:
On 11/2/21 1:48 AM, Di Zhu wrote:
Right now there is no way to query whether BPF programs are
attached to a sockmap or not.
we can use the standard interface in libbpf to query, such as:
bpf_prog_query(mapFd, BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_PARSER, 0, NULL, ...);
the mapFd is the fd of sockmap.
Signed-off-by: Di Zhu <zhudi2@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 9 +++++
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++
net/core/sock_map.c | 88
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index d604c8251d88..594ca91992db 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1961,6 +1961,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_syscall(struct bpf_prog
*prog,
int sock_map_get_from_fd(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog
*prog);
int sock_map_prog_detach(const union bpf_attr *attr, enum
bpf_prog_type ptype);
int sock_map_update_elem_sys(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void
*value, u64 flags);
+int sockmap_bpf_prog_query(const union bpf_attr *attr,
+ union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
All previous functions are with prefix "sock_map". Why you choose
a different prefix "sockmap"?
Thanks for all your suggestions, I will make changes to the inappropriate code.
+
void sock_map_unhash(struct sock *sk);
void sock_map_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout);
#else
@@ -2014,6 +2017,12 @@ static inline int
sock_map_update_elem_sys(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void
{
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
+
+static inline int sockmap_bpf_prog_query(const union bpf_attr *attr,
+ union bpf_attr __user *uattr)
+{
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
#endif /* CONFIG_NET && CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 4e50c0bfdb7d..17faeff8f85f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -3275,6 +3275,11 @@ static int bpf_prog_query(const union bpf_attr
*attr,
case BPF_FLOW_DISSECTOR:
case BPF_SK_LOOKUP:
return netns_bpf_prog_query(attr, uattr);
+ case BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_PARSER:
+ case BPF_SK_SKB_STREAM_VERDICT:
+ case BPF_SK_MSG_VERDICT:
+ case BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT:
+ return sockmap_bpf_prog_query(attr, uattr);
default:
return -EINVAL;
}
diff --git a/net/core/sock_map.c b/net/core/sock_map.c
index e252b8ec2b85..ca65ed0004d3 100644
--- a/net/core/sock_map.c
+++ b/net/core/sock_map.c
@@ -1412,38 +1412,50 @@ static struct sk_psock_progs
*sock_map_progs(struct bpf_map *map)
return NULL;
}
-static int sock_map_prog_update(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_prog
*prog,
- struct bpf_prog *old, u32 which)
+static int sock_map_prog_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_prog
**pprog[],
Can we just change "**pprog[]" to "***pprog"? In the code, you really
just pass the address of the decl "struct bpf_prog **pprog;" to the
function.
+ u32 which)
Some format issue here?
Format is right, passed the checkpatch script check.
Sorry about this. I guess my reply formating cheated me:
>>> +static int sock_map_prog_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_prog
>> **pprog[],
>>> + u32 which)
I see a larger misalignment between "struct bpf_map *map" and
"u32 which" in the reply email. But looking at original
patch, there are no issues.
{
struct sk_psock_progs *progs = sock_map_progs(map);
- struct bpf_prog **pprog;
if (!progs)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
[...]
