> On May 2, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/2/23 3:52 PM, Aditi Ghag wrote: >>> On May 1, 2023, at 4:32 PM, Aditi Ghag <aditi.ghag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 24, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 4/18/23 8:31 AM, Aditi Ghag wrote: >>>>> This patch adds the capability to destroy sockets in BPF. We plan to use >>>>> the capability in Cilium to force client sockets to reconnect when their >>>>> remote load-balancing backends are deleted. The other use case is >>>>> on-the-fly policy enforcement where existing socket connections prevented >>>>> by policies need to be terminated. >>>> >>>> If the earlier kfunc filter patch (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/1ECC8AAA-C2E6-4F8A-B7D3-5E90BDEE7C48@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/) looks fine to you, please include it into the next revision. This patchset needs it. Usual thing to do is to keep my sob (and author if not much has changed) and add your sob. The test needs to be broken out into a separate patch though. It needs to use the '__failure __msg("calling kernel function bpf_sock_destroy is not allowed")'. There are many examples in selftests, eg. the dynptr_fail.c. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, ok. I was waiting for your confirmation. The patch doesn't need my sob though (maybe tested-by). >>> I've created a separate patch for the test. >> Here is the patch diff for the extended test case for your reference. I'm ready to push a new version once I get an ack from you. > Looks reasonable to me. > > One thing I have been thinking is the bpf_sock_destroy kfunc should need a KF_TRUSTED_ARGS but I suspect that may need a change in the tcp_reg_info in tcp_ipv4.c. Not sure yet. Regardless, I don't think this will have a major effect on other patches in this set. Please go ahead to respin considering there are a few comments that need to be addressed already. At worst it can use one final revision to address KF_TRUSTED_ARGS. Pushed the next revision. Re KF_TRUSTED_ARGS: Looking at the description in the README, it's not entirely clear to me why we need it here now that we are restricting the kfunc to only the iterator programs. Is it somehow related to be able ensure that the socket argument needs to be locked? > [ btw, I don't see your reply/confirmation on the Patch 1 discussion also. Please ensure those will also be clarified/addressed in the next respin. ] > > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_destroy.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_destroy.c >> index a889c53e93c7..afed8cad94ee 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_destroy.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_destroy.c >> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ >> #include <bpf/bpf_endian.h> >> #include "sock_destroy_prog.skel.h" >> +#include "sock_destroy_prog_fail.skel.h" >> #include "network_helpers.h" >> #define TEST_NS "sock_destroy_netns" >> @@ -207,6 +208,8 @@ void test_sock_destroy(void) >> test_udp_server(skel); >> + RUN_TESTS(sock_destroy_prog_fail); >> + >> cleanup: >> if (nstoken) >> close_netns(nstoken); >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sock_destroy_prog_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sock_destroy_prog_fail.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..dd6850b58e25 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sock_destroy_prog_fail.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> + >> +#include "vmlinux.h" >> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> >> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> >> + >> +#include "bpf_misc.h" >> + >> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; >> + >> +int bpf_sock_destroy(struct sock_common *sk) __ksym; >> + >> +SEC("tp_btf/tcp_destroy_sock") >> +__failure __msg("calling kernel function bpf_sock_destroy is not allowed") >> +int BPF_PROG(trace_tcp_destroy_sock, struct sock *sk) >> +{ >> + /* should not load */ >> + bpf_sock_destroy((struct sock_common *)sk); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >>> >>> >>>> Please also fix the subject in the patches. They are all missing the bpf-next and revision tag. >>>> >>> >>> Took me a few moments to realize that as I was looking at earlier series. Looks like I forgot to add the tags to subsequent patches in this series. I'll fix it up in the next push.
