netdev - Re: [bpf PATCH v2 2/6] bpf: sockmap only allow ESTABLISHED sock state

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

Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:17:19 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
CC:     <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH v2 2/6] bpf: sockmap only allow ESTABLISHED sock state

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 07:50:19AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 06/14/2018 05:18 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:44:52AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> >> Per the note in the TLS ULP (which is actually a generic statement
> >> regarding ULPs)
> >>
> >>  /* The TLS ulp is currently supported only for TCP sockets
> >>   * in ESTABLISHED state.
> >>   * Supporting sockets in LISTEN state will require us
> >>   * to modify the accept implementation to clone rather then
> >>   * share the ulp context.
> >>   */
> > Can you explain how that apply to bpf_tcp ulp?
> > 
> > My understanding is the "ulp context" referred in TLS ulp is
> > the tls_context stored in icsk_ulp_data but I don't see bpf_tcp's
> > ulp is using icsk_ulp_data.
> > 
> > Others LGTM.
> > 
> 
> So I think you are right we could probably allow it
> here but I am thinking I'll leave the check for now
> anyways for a couple reasons. First, we will shortly
> add support to allow ULP types to coexist. At the moment
> the two ULP types can not coexist. When this happens it
> looks like we will need to restrict to only ESTABLISHED
> types or somehow make all ULPs work in all states.
> 
> Second, I don't have any use cases (nor can I think of
> any) for the sock{map|hash} ULP to be running on a non
> ESTABLISHED socket. Its not clear to me that having the
> sendmsg/sendpage hooks for a LISTEN socket makes sense.
> I would rather restrict it now and if we add something
> later where it makes sense to run on non-ESTABLISHED
> socks we can remove the check.
Make sense if there is no use case.  It will be helpful if the commit log
is updated accordingly.  Thanks!

Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>