linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] sock: add tracepoint for send recv length

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:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 11:24:18 +0800
From:   运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     mhiramat@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        kuniyu@...zon.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] sock: add tracepoint for send recv length

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:08 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu,  5 Jan 2023 18:00:14 +0800
> Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> > @@ -715,6 +716,10 @@ static inline int sock_sendmsg_nosec(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg)
> >                                    inet_sendmsg, sock, msg,
> >                                    msg_data_left(msg));
> >       BUG_ON(ret == -EIOCBQUEUED);
> > +
> > +     trace_sock_sendmsg_length(sock->sk, sock->sk->sk_family,
> > +                               sock->sk->sk_protocol,
> > +                               ret > 0 ? ret : 0, ret > 0 ? 0 : ret, 0);
>
> The length and error seem confusing. Basically, length is ret > 0 and error
> is ret < 0, right?
>
> That means we don't need both. We could simply have:
>
> > +     TP_ARGS(sk, family, protocol, length, error, flags),
>
>         TP_ARGS(sk, family, protocol, ret, flags)
>

Hi Steve, thank you for your advice，i'll modify it on v3.

> >
> > @@ -992,9 +997,17 @@ INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(int inet6_recvmsg(struct socket *, struct msghdr *,
> >  static inline int sock_recvmsg_nosec(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
> >                                    int flags)
> >  {
> > -     return INDIRECT_CALL_INET(sock->ops->recvmsg, inet6_recvmsg,
> > +     int ret = INDIRECT_CALL_INET(sock->ops->recvmsg, inet6_recvmsg,
> >                                 inet_recvmsg, sock, msg, msg_data_left(msg),
> >                                 flags);
> > +
> > +     trace_sock_recvmsg_length(sock->sk, sock->sk->sk_family,
> > +                               sock->sk->sk_protocol,
> > +                               (ret > 0 && !(flags & MSG_PEEK)) ?
> > +                               ret : 0,
> > +                               (ret > 0 && !(flags & MSG_PEEK)) ? 0 : ret,
>
> Since both length and error are zero when flags has MSG_PEEK set:
>
>         trace_sock_recvmsg_length(sock->sk, sock->sk->sk_family,
>                                   sock->sk->sk_protocol,
>                                   !(flags & MSG_PEEK) ? ret : 0,
>
> -- Steve

Regardless of whether the MSG_PEEK flag is set or not, it is possible
to return -errno,
but based on your suggestion, I plan to modify it like this:

trace_sock_recvmsg_length(sock->sk, sock->sk->sk_family,
                          sock->sk->sk_protocol,
                          !(flags & MSG_PEEK) ? ret : (ret < 0 ? ret : 0),

what do you think?

Thanks,
Yunhui