netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: add support for SO_PRIORITY in bpf

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: <CALpBo+Wk-rtga3wBZCgzSi24wxYAGu=cb0W8CzwhT_2xW4ys-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:51:32 -0800
From:   Vlad Dumitrescu <vlad@...itrescu.ro>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        daniel@...earbox.net, brakmo@...com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kraigatgoog@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: add support for SO_PRIORITY in bpf_getsockopt

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
> On 11/10/17 8:04 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>>
>> From: Vlad Dumitrescu <vladum@...gle.com>
>>
>> Allows BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS programs to read sk_priority.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Dumitrescu <vladum@...gle.com>
>> ---
>>  net/core/filter.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>> index 1afa17935954..61c791f9f628 100644
>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>> @@ -3292,8 +3292,20 @@ BPF_CALL_5(bpf_getsockopt, struct bpf_sock_ops_kern
>> *, bpf_sock,
>>         if (!sk_fullsock(sk))
>>                 goto err_clear;
>>
>> +       if (level == SOL_SOCKET) {
>> +               if (optlen != sizeof(int))
>> +                       goto err_clear;
>> +
>> +               switch (optname) {
>> +               case SO_PRIORITY:
>> +                       *((int *)optval) = sk->sk_priority;
>
>
> would be cleaner to add sk_priority to 'struct bpf_sock_ops' instead.
> Faster runtime too.
>

I agree it will be faster, and I considered that as well. However, I
was aiming for consistency with the set function, which supports
SO_PRIORITY.

Maybe both (I have no preference)? I'll prepare the patch for
bpf_sock_ops in the meantime.