[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZKb9ObvvhOaKXJcp@google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:43:21 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Xin Liu <liuxin350@...wei.com>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
hsinweih@....edu, jakub@...udflare.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
syzbot+49f6cef45247ff249498@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, yanan@...wei.com,
wuchangye@...wei.com, xiesongyang@...wei.com,
kongweibin2@...wei.com, zhangmingyi5@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, sockops: Enhance the return capability of sockops
On 07/06, Xin Liu wrote:
> Since commit 2585cd62f098 ("bpf: Only reply field should be writeable"),
> sockops is not allowd to modify the replylong field except replylong[0].
> The reason is that the replylong[1] to replylong[3] field is not used
> at that time.
>
> But in actual use, we can call `BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS` in the
> kernel modules and expect sockops to return some useful data.
>
> The design comment about bpf_sock_ops::replylong in
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h is described as follows:
>
> ```
> struct bpf_sock_ops {
> __u32 op;
> union {
> __u32 args[4]; /* Optionally passed to bpf program */
> __u32 reply; /* Returned by bpf program */
> __u32 replylong[4]; /* Optioznally returned by bpf prog */
> };
> ...
> ```
>
> It seems to contradict the purpose for which the field was originally
> designed. Let's remove this restriction.
>
> Fixes: 2585cd62f098 ("bpf: Only reply field should be writeable")
The commit you reference explicitly says that there is no reason to allow
replylong[1..3] because there is no use for them. Has something changed
since it was added? Any reason to expose those fields?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists