On 09/11, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 9/11/23 7:11 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 09/09, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > > On 9/8/23 2:00 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > Commit 151e887d8ff9 ("veth: Fixing transmit return status for dropped > > > > packets") exposed the fact that bpf_clone_redirect is capable of > > > > returning raw NET_XMIT_XXX return codes. > > > > > > > > This is in the conflict with its UAPI doc which says the following: > > > > "0 on success, or a negative error in case of failure." > > > > > > > > Let's wrap dev_queue_xmit's return value (in __bpf_tx_skb) into > > > > net_xmit_errno to make sure we correctly propagate NET_XMIT_DROP > > > > as -ENOBUFS instead of 1. > > > > > > > > Note, this is technically breaking existing UAPI where we used to > > > > return 1 and now will do -ENOBUFS. The alternative is to > > > > document that bpf_clone_redirect can return 1 for DROP and 2 for CN. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > net/core/filter.c | 3 +++ > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > > > > index a094694899c9..9e297931b02f 100644 > > > > --- a/net/core/filter.c > > > > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > > > > @@ -2129,6 +2129,9 @@ static inline int __bpf_tx_skb(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb) > > > > ret = dev_queue_xmit(skb); > > > > dev_xmit_recursion_dec(); > > > > + if (ret > 0) > > > > + ret = net_xmit_errno(ret); > > > > > > I think it is better to have bpf_clone_redirect returning -ENOBUFS instead > > > of leaking NET_XMIT_XXX to the uapi. The bpf_clone_redirect in the > > > uapi/bpf.h also mentions > > > > > > * Return > > > * 0 on success, or a negative error in case of failure. > > > > > > If -ENOBUFS is returned in __bpf_tx_skb, should the same be done for > > > __bpf_rx_skb? and should net_xmit_errno() only be done for > > > bpf_clone_redirect()? __bpf_{tx,rx}_skb is also used by skb_do_redirect() > > > which also calls __bpf_redirect_neigh() that returns NET_XMIT_xxx but no > > > caller seems to care the NET_XMIT_xxx value now. > > > > __bpf_rx_skb seems to only add to backlog and doesn't seem to return any > > of the NET_XMIT_xxx. But I might be wrong and haven't looked too deep > > into that. > > > > > Daniel should know more here. I would wait for Daniel to comment. > > > > Ack, sure! > > I think my preference would be to just document it in the helper UAPI, what > Stan was suggesting below: > > | Note, this is technically breaking existing UAPI where we used to > | return 1 and now will do -ENOBUFS. The alternative is to > | document that bpf_clone_redirect can return 1 for DROP and 2 for CN. > > And then only adjusting the test case. In this case, would we also need something similar to our TCP_BPF_<state> changes? Like BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_NET_XMIT_XXX != NET_XMIT_XXX)? Otherwise, we risk more leakage into the UAPI. Merely documenting doesn't seem enough? > Programs checking for ret < 0 will continue to behave as before. Technically > the bpf_clone_redirect() did its job just that on the veth side things were > dropped. Other drivers such as tun, vrf, ipvlan, bond could already have > returned NET_XMIT_DROP, so technically it's not a new situation where it is > possible. And having a ret > 0 could then also be clearly used to differentiate > that something came from driver side rather than helper side. > > > > For the selftest, may be another option is to use a 28 bytes data_in for the > > > lwt program redirecting to veth? 14 bytes used by bpf_prog_test_run_skb and > > > leave 14 bytes for veth_xmit. It seems the original intention of the "veth > > > ETH_HLEN+1 packet ingress" test is expecting it to succeed also. > > > > IIUC, you're suggesting to pass full ipv4 or ipv6 packet for veth tests > > to make them actually succeed with the forwarding, right? > > > > Sure, I can do that. But let's keep this entry with the -NOBUFS as well? > > Just for the sake of ensuring that we don't export NET_XMIT_xxx from > > uapi. > > >