netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf/flow_dissector: pass input flags to BPF flow dissector program

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:03:06 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf/flow_dissector: pass input flags to
 BPF flow dissector program

On 07/25, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 08:33:36AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > C flow dissector supports input flags that tell it to customize parsing
> > by either stopping early or trying to parse as deep as possible. Pass
> > those flags to the BPF flow dissector so it can make the same
> > decisions. In the next commits I'll add support for those flags to
> > our reference bpf_flow.c
> > 
> > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/skbuff.h       | 2 +-
> >  include/net/flow_dissector.h | 4 ----
> >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h     | 5 +++++
> >  net/bpf/test_run.c           | 2 +-
> >  net/core/flow_dissector.c    | 5 +++--
> >  5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > index 718742b1c505..9b7a8038beec 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > @@ -1271,7 +1271,7 @@ static inline int skb_flow_dissector_bpf_prog_detach(const union bpf_attr *attr)
> >  
> >  struct bpf_flow_dissector;
> >  bool bpf_flow_dissect(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_flow_dissector *ctx,
> > -		      __be16 proto, int nhoff, int hlen);
> > +		      __be16 proto, int nhoff, int hlen, unsigned int flags);
> >  
> >  bool __skb_flow_dissect(const struct net *net,
> >  			const struct sk_buff *skb,
> > diff --git a/include/net/flow_dissector.h b/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > index 90bd210be060..3e2642587b76 100644
> > --- a/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > +++ b/include/net/flow_dissector.h
> > @@ -253,10 +253,6 @@ enum flow_dissector_key_id {
> >  	FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_MAX,
> >  };
> >  
> > -#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_PARSE_1ST_FRAG		BIT(0)
> > -#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_FLOW_LABEL	BIT(1)
> > -#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_ENCAP		BIT(2)
> > -
> >  struct flow_dissector_key {
> >  	enum flow_dissector_key_id key_id;
> >  	size_t offset; /* offset of struct flow_dissector_key_*
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index fa1c753dcdbc..b4ad19bd6aa8 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -3507,6 +3507,10 @@ enum bpf_task_fd_type {
> >  	BPF_FD_TYPE_URETPROBE,		/* filename + offset */
> >  };
> >  
> > +#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_PARSE_1ST_FRAG		(1U << 0)
> > +#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_FLOW_LABEL	(1U << 1)
> > +#define FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_ENCAP		(1U << 2)
> > +
> 
> I'm a bit concerned with direct move.
> Last time we were in similar situation we've created:
> enum {
>         BPF_TCP_ESTABLISHED = 1,
>         BPF_TCP_SYN_SENT,
> 
> and added:
>         BUILD_BUG_ON((int)BPF_TCP_ESTABLISHED != (int)TCP_ESTABLISHED);
>         BUILD_BUG_ON((int)BPF_TCP_SYN_SENT != (int)TCP_SYN_SENT);
> 
> It may be overkill here, but feels safer than direct move.
> Adding BPF_ prefix also feels necessary to avoid very unlikely
> (but still theoretically possible) conflicts.
Sounds good, thanks for the pointers, will do the same here!