netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 00/11] Extend SOCKMAP/SOCKHASH to store 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:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:41:14 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 00/11] Extend SOCKMAP/SOCKHASH to store
 listening sockets

On 2/18/20 6:10 PM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> This patch set turns SOCK{MAP,HASH} into generic collections for TCP
> sockets, both listening and established. Adding support for listening
> sockets enables us to use these BPF map types with reuseport BPF programs.
> 
> Why? SOCKMAP and SOCKHASH, in comparison to REUSEPORT_SOCKARRAY, allow the
> socket to be in more than one map at the same time.
> 
> Having a BPF map type that can hold listening sockets, and gracefully
> co-exist with reuseport BPF is important if, in the future, we want
> BPF programs that run at socket lookup time [0]. Cover letter for v1 of
> this series tells the full story of how we got here [1].
> 
> Although SOCK{MAP,HASH} are not a drop-in replacement for SOCKARRAY just
> yet, because UDP support is lacking, it's a step in this direction. We're
> working with Lorenz on extending SOCK{MAP,HASH} to hold UDP sockets, and
> expect to post RFC series for sockmap + UDP in the near future.
> 
> I've dropped Acks from all patches that have been touched since v6.
> 
> The audit for missing READ_ONCE annotations for access to sk_prot is
> ongoing. Thus far I've found one location specific to TCP listening sockets
> that needed annotating. This got fixed it in this iteration. I wonder if
> sparse checker could be put to work to identify places where we have
> sk_prot access while not holding sk_lock...
> 
> The patch series depends on another one, posted earlier [2], that has been
> split out of it.
> 
> Thanks,
> jkbs
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20190828072250.29828-1-jakub@cloudflare.com/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191123110751.6729-1-jakub@cloudflare.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200217121530.754315-1-jakub@cloudflare.com/
> 
> v6 -> v7:
> 
> - Extended the series to cover SOCKHASH. (patches 4-8, 10-11) (John)
> 
> - Rebased onto recent bpf-next. Resolved conflicts in recent fixes to
>    sk_state checks on sockmap/sockhash update path. (patch 4)
> 
> - Added missing READ_ONCE annotation in sock_copy. (patch 1)
> 
> - Split out patches that simplify sk_psock_restore_proto [2].

Applied, thanks!