linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: filter: split 'struct sk

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]

Message-ID: <20140801190341.GA28642@salvia>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2014 21:03:41 +0200
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/5] net: filter: split 'struct sk_filter'
 into socket and bpf parts

On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:50:31AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:02:19PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:34:16PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> >> clean up names related to socket filtering and bpf in the following way:
> >> >> - everything that deals with sockets keeps 'sk_*' prefix
> >> >> - everything that is pure BPF is changed to 'bpf_*' prefix
> >> >>
> >> >> split 'struct sk_filter' into
> >> >> struct sk_filter {
> >> >>       atomic_t        refcnt;
> >> >>       struct rcu_head rcu;
> >> >>       struct bpf_prog *prog;
> >> >> };
> >> >
> >> > I think you can use 'struct bpf_prog prog' instead so the entire
> >> > sk_filter remains in the same memory blob (as it is before this
> >> > patch).
> >> >
> >> > You can add an inline function to retrieve the bpg prog from the
> >> > filter:
> >> >
> >> > static inline struct bpf_prog *sk_filter_bpf(struct sk_filter *)
> >> >
> >> > and use it whenever possible to fetch the bpf program. I'm suggesting
> >> > this because we can use the zero array size in the socket filtering
> >> > abstraction later on, if the function above is used, this just needs
> >> > one line in that function to be updated to fetch the program from the
> >> > placeholder.
> >>
> >> correct. It would speed up SK_RUN_FILTER macro a little and I've
> >> considered it, but decided to go with the pointer for two reasons:
> >> 1.In sk_attach_filter() the bpf_prog is allocated, then reallocated
> >> as part of bpf_prepare_filter(). My patch #1 cleans up that part to
> >> avoid 'struct sock *' dependency, so all bpf_* functions work
> >> purely with bpf_prog... If bpf_prog is embedded inside sk_filter,
> >> bpf_prepare_filter would need to have a callback to reallocate
> >> the container struct and pass this callback through the chain
> >> of calls, which is ugly
> >
> > I think you can allocate the sk_filter once you get the final bpf
> > program, then you can memcpy() it. This adds some extra overhead in
> > the sk_attach_filter(), but that path is executed from user context
> > and it's also a rare operation (only once to attach the filter). It's
> > still not going to be a beauty, but IMO it's worth to focus on getting
> > that little speed up in the packet path at the cost of adding some
> > overhead on the socket attach path.
> 
> memcpy of 'bpf_prog' is not just 'not a beauty', it won't work, since
> bpf_prog is freed via work_queue due to JIT. See bpf_jit_free()
[...]

I see, in this patch you renamed sk_filter to bpf_prog in
bpf_jit_free() so no access to sk_filter anymore and alignment needs a
closer look.

OK... let's stick to the struct bpf_prog pointer.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/