linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter

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: <r4mpzzib2rzcinai6ctcb32jvcbaenrjfddfcr4o6ghfvnqwct@gcmlz3pi253f>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:37:33 -0500
From: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, 
	andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, 
	kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in
 __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> > Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
> > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
> > the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
> > reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
> > and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
> > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
> > 
> > To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
> > socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
> > BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
> > function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>

Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in
the subject instead?

If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it
with a different subject?

It felt right to put net: there as it felt like I was working with 
networking code that was simply calling bpf code but I'm not exactly
sure of that anymore.

This is my first kernel patch that has actually gone anywhere and 
I'm just looking for some feedback as I couldn't find much good 
documentation on kernel.org that describes how I should be doing 
this.

Thanks, 
Oliver