netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP

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]

Message-ID: <877dz8peh2.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:48:57 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:54:07 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:13 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> >
>> > While it is currently possible for userspace to specify that an existing
>> > XDP program should not be replaced when attaching to an interface, there is
>> > no mechanism to safely replace a specific XDP program with another.
>> >
>> > This patch adds a new netlink attribute, IFLA_XDP_EXPECTED_ID, which can be
>> > set along with IFLA_XDP_FD. If set, the kernel will check that the program
>> > currently loaded on the interface matches the expected one, and fail the
>> > operation if it does not. This corresponds to a 'cmpxchg' memory operation.
>> > Setting the new attribute with a negative value means that no program is
>> > expected to be attached, which corresponds to setting the UPDATE_IF_NOEXIST
>> > flag.
>> >
>> > A new companion flag, XDP_FLAGS_EXPECT_ID, is also added to explicitly
>> > request checking of the EXPECTED_ID attribute. This is needed for userspace
>> > to discover whether the kernel supports the new attribute.  
>> 
>> Doesn't it feel inconsistent in UAPI that FD is used to specify XDP
>> program to be attached, but ID is used to specify expected XDP
>> program? Especially that the same cgroup use case is using
>> (consistently) prog FDs. Or is it another case where XDP needs its own
>> special way?
>
> There was a comment during review of v1, I wish you spoke up then.
>
> The prog ID is what dump returns, so the consistency can go either way
> (note that this API predates object IDs). Since XDP uses IDs internally
> it's just simpler to take prog ID.
>
> But it's a detail, so if you feel strongly I don't really mind.

Using an FD instead of an ID does make this more extensible (such as
supporting bpf_link FDs in the future; see my other reply to Alexei). So
I'll respin this, and switch it back to EXPECTED_FD.

-Toke