netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 05/18] bpf: create tcp_bpf_ulp allowing BPF to monitor socket TX/RX data

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: <20180315215954.wufvwdhcjpntdxbb@ast-mbp>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:59:55 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        davejwatson@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 05/18] bpf: create tcp_bpf_ulp allowing BPF
 to monitor socket TX/RX data

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:23:29PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>  
> +/* User return codes for SK_MSG prog type. */
> +enum sk_msg_action {
> +	SK_MSG_DROP = 0,
> +	SK_MSG_PASS,
> +};

do we really need new enum here?
It's the same as 'enum sk_action' and SK_DROP == SK_MSG_DROP
and there will be only drop/pass in both enums.
Also I don't see where these two new SK_MSG_* are used...

> +
> +/* user accessible metadata for SK_MSG packet hook, new fields must
> + * be added to the end of this structure
> + */
> +struct sk_msg_md {
> +	__u32 data;
> +	__u32 data_end;
> +};

I think it's time for me to ask for forgiveness :)
I used __u32 for data and data_end only because all other fields
in __sk_buff were __u32 at the time and I couldn't easily figure out
how to teach verifier to recognize 8-byte rewrites.
Unfortunately my mistake stuck and was copied over into xdp.
Since this is new struct let's do it right and add
'void *data, *data_end' here,
since bpf prog will use them as 'void *' pointers.
There are no compat issues here, since bpf is always 64-bit.

> +static int bpf_map_msg_verdict(int _rc, struct sk_msg_buff *md)
> +{
> +	return ((_rc == SK_PASS) ?
> +	       (md->map ? __SK_REDIRECT : __SK_PASS) :
> +	       __SK_DROP);

you're using old SK_PASS here too ;)
that's to my point of not adding SK_MSG_PASS...

Overall the patch set looks absolutely great.
Thank you for working on it.