[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLvbMRvCg2disV+_AR-154BwRpeB8Zg_8YpO=7gzL=Trg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:00:35 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南) <Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"kuniyu@...zon.com" <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
Cheng-Jui Wang (王正睿) <Cheng-Jui.Wang@...iatek.com>,
wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>, "andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
Bobule Chang (張弘義) <bobule.chang@...iatek.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>, "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>, "song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Yanghui Li (李阳辉) <Yanghui.Li@...iatek.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "eddyz87@...il.com" <eddyz87@...il.com>,
"martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, "matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com" <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
"yonghong.song@...ux.dev" <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, "haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] bpf, net: Check cgroup_bpf_enabled() only once in do_sock_getsockopt()
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:02 AM Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南)
<Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com> wrote:
>
>
> BTW, If this should be handled in kernel, modification shown below
> could fix the issue without breaking the "static_branch" usage in both
> macros:
>
>
> +++ /include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h:
> -#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen)
> +#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen, compat)
> ({
> int __ret = 0;
> if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
> + else
> + *compat = true;
> __ret;
> })
>
> #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT(sock, level, optname,
> optval, optlen, max_optlen, retval)
> ({
> int __ret = retval;
> - if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT) &&
> - cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> + if (cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> if (!(sock)->sk_prot->bpf_bypass_getsockopt ||
> ...
>
> +++ /net/socket.c:
> int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
> {
> ...
> ...
> + /* The meaning of `compat` variable could be changed here
> + * to indicate if cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_SOCK_OPS) is
> false.
> + */
> if (!compat)
> - max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen);
> + max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen,
> &compat);
This is better, but it's still quite a hack. Let's not override it.
We can have another bool, but the question:
do we really need BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN ?
copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
should be fast enough to do it unconditionally.
What are we saving here?
Stan ?
>
> > Thanks,
> > --tze-nan
>
> *********** MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ***********
Pls fix your mailer. Such a footer is not appropriate for the public
mailing list.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists