netdev - RE: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf, sockmap: Don't set up sockmap progs for listening sockets

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]

Date:   Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:07:49 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf, sockmap: Don't set up sockmap
 progs for listening sockets

John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> > Now that sockmap can hold listening sockets, when setting up the psock we
> > will (i) grab references to verdict/parser progs, and (2) override socket
> > upcalls sk_data_ready and sk_write_space.
> > 
> > We cannot redirect to listening sockets so we don't need to link the socket
> > to the BPF progs, but more importantly we don't want the listening socket
> > to have overridden upcalls because they would get inherited by child
> > sockets cloned from it.
> > 
> > Introduce a separate initialization path for listening sockets that does
> > not change the upcalls and ignores the BPF progs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/sock_map.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> 
> Any reason only support for sock_map types are added? We can also support
> sock_hash I presume? Could be a follow up patch I guess but if its not
> too much trouble would be worth adding now vs trying to detect at run
> time later. I think it should be as simple as using similar logic as
> below in sock_hash_update_common
> 
> Thanks.

After running through the other patches I think its probably OK to do hash
support as a follow up. Up to you.