[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230904112922.13882-1-00107082@163.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 19:29:22 +0800
From: David Wang <00107082@....com>
To: fw@...len.de
Cc: 00107082@....com, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, haoluo@...gle.com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, jolsa@...nel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, sdf@...gle.com,
song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev
Subject:
At 2023-09-04 18:48:56, "Florian Westphal" <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>David Wang <00107082@....com> wrote:
>> This sample code implements a simple ipv4
>> blacklist via the new bpf type BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER,
>> which was introduced in 6.4.
>>
>> The bpf program drops package if destination ip address
>> hits a match in the map of type BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE,
>>
>> The userspace code would load the bpf program,
>> attach it to netfilter's FORWARD/OUTPUT hook,
>> and then write ip patterns into the bpf map.
>
>Thanks, I think its good to have this.
Thanks for the quick response! Glad to contribute!
>> +
>> +#define NF_DROP 0
>> +#define NF_ACCEPT 1
>
>If you are interested, you could send a patch for nf-next that
>makes the uapi headers expose this as enum, AFAIU that would make
>the verdict nanes available via vmlinux.h.
>
I think I can work on this.
>> + if (pvalue) {
>> + /* cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe */
>> + bpf_printk("rule matched with %d...\n", *pvalue);
>
>If you are interested you could send a patch that adds a kfunc to
>nf_bpf_link that exposes nf_log_packet() to bpf.
>
>nf_log_packet has a terrible api, I suggest to have the kfunc take
>'struct nf_hook_state *' instead of 6+ members of that struct as
>argument.
>
Package logging strategy is out of my league, for now, but I will keep eye on this.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists