netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] ipv6: sr: introduce seg6local End.BPF action

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:34:07 +0200
From:   Mathieu Xhonneux <m.xhonneux@...il.com>
To:     David Lebrun <dav.lebrun@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Lebrun <dlebrun@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] ipv6: sr: introduce seg6local End.BPF action

2018-04-03 16:25 GMT+02:00 David Lebrun <dav.lebrun@...il.com>:
> Actually I'm wrong here. dst_input() will call either ip6_input() or
> ip6_forward(), not ipv6_rcv(). Both functions expect IP6CB() to be set,
> so using skb->cb here will interfere with them.
>
> What about saving and restoring the IPv6 CB, similarly to what TCP does with
> tcp_v6_restore_cb() ?


Yes. I can change the call to bpf_prog_run_save_cb to bpf_prog_run_clear_cb,
and then manually save/restore the IPv6 CB in input_action_end_bpf.

Or is there maybe a better solution to share some state between the bpf caller
and helpers, that does not need access to skb->cb ?