[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zsk_lGsZBBqbesqS@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:04:04 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南) <Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com>,
"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 08/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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 ?
Agreed, most likely nobody would notice :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists