On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 5:04 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 04:30:54PM -0700, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > +struct sock_common {
> > > + unsigned short skc_family;
> > > + unsigned long skc_flags;
> > > + unsigned char skc_reuse:4;
> > > + unsigned char skc_reuseport:1;
> > > + unsigned char skc_ipv6only:1;
> > > + unsigned char skc_net_refcnt:1;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct sock {
> > > + struct sock_common __sk_common;
> > > + __u16 sk_type;
> > > + __u16 sk_protocol;
> > > + int sk_rcvlowat;
> > > + __u32 sk_mark;
> > > + unsigned long sk_max_pacing_rate;
> > > + unsigned int keepalive_time;
> > > + unsigned int keepalive_intvl;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct tcp_options_received {
> > > + __u16 user_mss;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> >
> > I'm assuming you're not using vmlinux here because it doesn't bring
> > it most of the defines? Should we add missing stuff to bpf_tracing_net.h
> > instead?
> Ah, actually my first attempt was to use vmlinux.h and had
> all defines ready for addition to bpf_tracing_net.h.
>
> However, I hit an issue in reading bitfield. It is why the
> bitfield in the tcp_sock below is sandwiched between __u32.
> I think it is likely LLVM and/or CO-RE related. Yonghong is
> helping to investigate it.
>
> In the mean time, I define those mini struct here.
> Once the bitfield issue is resolved, we can go back to
> use vmlinux.h.
Oh, interesting :-)
> > > +struct ipv6_pinfo {
> > > + __u16 recverr:1,
> > > + sndflow:1,
> > > + repflow:1,
> > > + pmtudisc:3,
> > > + padding:1,
> > > + srcprefs:3,
> > > + dontfrag:1,
> > > + autoflowlabel:1,
> > > + autoflowlabel_set:1,
> > > + mc_all:1,
> > > + recverr_rfc4884:1,
> > > + rtalert_isolate:1;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct inet_sock {
> > > + /* sk and pinet6 has to be the first two members of inet_sock */
> > > + struct sock sk;
> > > + struct ipv6_pinfo *pinet6;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct inet_connection_sock {
> > > + __u32 icsk_user_timeout;
> > > + __u8 icsk_syn_retries;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct tcp_sock {
> > > + struct inet_connection_sock inet_conn;
> > > + struct tcp_options_received rx_opt;
> > > + __u8 save_syn:2,
> > > + syn_data:1,
> > > + syn_fastopen:1,
> > > + syn_fastopen_exp:1,
> > > + syn_fastopen_ch:1,
> > > + syn_data_acked:1,
> > > + is_cwnd_limited:1;
> > > + __u32 window_clamp;
> > > + __u8 nonagle : 4,
> > > + thin_lto : 1,
> > > + recvmsg_inq : 1,
> > > + repair : 1,
> > > + frto : 1;
> > > + __u32 notsent_lowat;
> > > + __u8 keepalive_probes;
> > > + unsigned int keepalive_time;
> > > + unsigned int keepalive_intvl;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct socket {
> > > + struct sock *sk;
> > > +} __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
> > > +
> > > +struct loop_ctx {
> > > + void *ctx;
> > > + struct sock *sk;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static int __bpf_getsockopt(void *ctx, struct sock *sk,
> > > + int level, int opt, int *optval,
> > > + int optlen)
> > > +{
> > > + if (level == SOL_SOCKET) {
> > > + switch (opt) {
> > > + case SO_REUSEADDR:
> > > + *optval = !!(sk->__sk_common.skc_reuse);
> > > + break;
> > > + case SO_KEEPALIVE:
> > > + *optval = !!(sk->__sk_common.skc_flags & (1UL << 3));
> > > + break;
> > > + case SO_RCVLOWAT:
> > > + *optval = sk->sk_rcvlowat;
> > > + break;
> >
> > What's the idea with the options above? Why not allow them in
> > bpf_getsockopt instead?
> I am planning to refactor the bpf_getsockopt also,
> so trying to avoid adding more dup code at this point
> while they can directly be read from sk through PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
>
> btw, since we are on bpf_getsockopt(), do you still see a usage on
> bpf_getsockopt() for those 'integer-value' optnames that can be
> easily read from the sk pointer ?
Writing is still done via bpf_setsockopt, so having the same interface
to read the settings seems useful?
> > > + case SO_MARK:
> > > + *optval = sk->sk_mark;
> > > + break;
> >
> > SO_MARK should be handled by bpf_getsockopt ?
> Good point, will remove SO_MARK case.
>
> Thanks for the review!
