[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1486351824.7793.29.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:30:24 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc: Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] Add a helper function to get socket
cookie in eBPF
On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 12:01 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Chenbo Feng
> <chenbofeng.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_socket_cookie, struct sk_buff *, skb)
> > +{
> > + return skb->sk ? sock_gen_cookie(skb->sk) : 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Does this code need to increment the socket refcount, or call
> ACCESS_ONCE to get skb->sk? The socket filter codepath should be safe,
> but if this function is called in xt_ebpf, could it race with
> something that sets skb->sk to null?
I do not see how this could possibly happen.
READ_ONCE() would not prevent the 'old' sk from disappearing anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists