linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] Extending bpf_setsockopt with SO

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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 23:55:12 +0200
From:   Ferenc Fejes <fejes@....elte.hu>
To:     sdf@...gle.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Extending bpf_setsockopt with SO_BINDTODEVICE sockopt

> Any specific reason you're not reusing sock_setbindtodevice or at least
> sock_setbindtodevice_locked here? I think, historically, we've
> reimplemented some of the sockopts because they were 'easy' (i.e.
> were just setting a flag in the socket), this one looks more involved.

Yes, there is a copy_from_user in the sock_setbindtodevice for copying
the ioctl netdev name from the user which (I think) not necessary
here. However sock_setbindtodevice_locked is the way to go but I was
afraid to forward declare it in sock.h, change the linkage and export
it in sock.c (I find that a little bit too intrusive).

> I'd suggest, add an optional 'lock_sk' argument to sock_setbindtodevice,
> call it with 'true' from real setsockopt, and call it with 'false'
> here.

Thanks for the advice. However I think I'll wait what happens with
this patch: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200520195509.2215098-8-hch@lst.de/T/#u
Very strange coincidence that patch was submitted a few hours before
mine (but I noticed just now) and refactor the sock_setbindtodevice in
a way that will useful in my case (also define it in sock.h).

> And, as Andrii pointed out, it would be nice to have a selftest
> that exercises this new option.

Thanks, I will implement them in the next iteration.