On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 3:04 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:23 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Rename bpf_prog_run_array_cg_flags to bpf_prog_run_array_cg and
> > use it everywhere. check_return_code already enforces sane
> > return ranges for all cgroup types. (only egress and bind hooks have
> > uncanonical return ranges, the rest is using [0, 1])
> >
> > No functional changes.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h | 8 ++---
> > kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 70 ++++++++++++--------------------------
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> > index 88a51b242adc..669d96d074ad 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> > @@ -225,24 +225,20 @@ static inline bool cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(struct sock *sk,
> >
> > #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_SA_PROG(sk, uaddr, atype) \
> > ({ \
> > - u32 __unused_flags; \
> > int __ret = 0; \
> > if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(atype)) \
> > __ret = __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_sock_addr(sk, uaddr, atype, \
> > - NULL, \
> > - &__unused_flags); \
> > + NULL, NULL); \
> > __ret; \
> > })
> >
> > #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_SA_PROG_LOCK(sk, uaddr, atype, t_ctx) \
> > ({ \
> > - u32 __unused_flags; \
> > int __ret = 0; \
> > if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(atype)) { \
> > lock_sock(sk); \
> > __ret = __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_sock_addr(sk, uaddr, atype, \
> > - t_ctx, \
> > - &__unused_flags); \
> > + t_ctx, NULL); \
> > release_sock(sk); \
> > } \
> > __ret; \
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> > index 0cb6211fcb58..f61eca32c747 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> > @@ -25,50 +25,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
> > /* __always_inline is necessary to prevent indirect call through run_prog
> > * function pointer.
> > */
> > -static __always_inline int
> > -bpf_prog_run_array_cg_flags(const struct cgroup_bpf *cgrp,
> > - enum cgroup_bpf_attach_type atype,
> > - const void *ctx, bpf_prog_run_fn run_prog,
> > - int retval, u32 *ret_flags)
> > -{
> > - const struct bpf_prog_array_item *item;
> > - const struct bpf_prog *prog;
> > - const struct bpf_prog_array *array;
> > - struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
> > - struct bpf_cg_run_ctx run_ctx;
> > - u32 func_ret;
> > -
> > - run_ctx.retval = retval;
> > - migrate_disable();
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > - array = rcu_dereference(cgrp->effective[atype]);
> > - item = &array->items[0];
> > - old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx);
> > - while ((prog = READ_ONCE(item->prog))) {
> > - run_ctx.prog_item = item;
> > - func_ret = run_prog(prog, ctx);
> > - if (!(func_ret & 1) && !IS_ERR_VALUE((long)run_ctx.retval))
> > - run_ctx.retval = -EPERM;
> > - *(ret_flags) |= (func_ret >> 1);
> > - item++;
> > - }
> > - bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx);
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > - migrate_enable();
> > - return run_ctx.retval;
> > -}
> > -
> > static __always_inline int
> > bpf_prog_run_array_cg(const struct cgroup_bpf *cgrp,
> > enum cgroup_bpf_attach_type atype,
> > const void *ctx, bpf_prog_run_fn run_prog,
> > - int retval)
> > + int retval, u32 *ret_flags)
> > {
> > const struct bpf_prog_array_item *item;
> > const struct bpf_prog *prog;
> > const struct bpf_prog_array *array;
> > struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
> > struct bpf_cg_run_ctx run_ctx;
> > + u32 func_ret;
> >
> > run_ctx.retval = retval;
> > migrate_disable();
> > @@ -78,8 +46,11 @@ bpf_prog_run_array_cg(const struct cgroup_bpf *cgrp,
> > old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx);
> > while ((prog = READ_ONCE(item->prog))) {
> > run_ctx.prog_item = item;
> > - if (!run_prog(prog, ctx) && !IS_ERR_VALUE((long)run_ctx.retval))
> > + func_ret = run_prog(prog, ctx);
> > + if (!(func_ret & 1) && !IS_ERR_VALUE((long)run_ctx.retval))
>
> to be completely true to previous behavior, shouldn't there be
>
> if (ret_flags)
> func_ret &= 1;
> if (!func_ret && !IS_ERR_VALUE(...))
>
> here?
>
> This might have been discussed previously and I missed it. If that's
> so, please ignore.
We are converting the cases where run_prog(prog, ctx) returns 0 or 1,
so it seems like we don't have to reproduce the existing behavior
1-to-1?
So I'm not sure it matters, or am I missing something?
