netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: cpumap: add the possibility to attach an eBPF program to cpumap

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: <20200703154628.GA1321275@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 17:46:28 +0200
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        ast@...nel.org, brouer@...hat.com, toke@...hat.com,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
        andrii.nakryiko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: cpumap: add the possibility to
 attach an eBPF program to cpumap

> On 6/30/20 2:49 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> [...]

[...]

> > +	prog = READ_ONCE(rcpu->prog);
> 
> What purpose does the READ_ONCE() have here, also given you don't use it in above check?
> Since upon map update you realloc, repopulate and then xchg() the rcpu entry itself, there
> is never the case where you xchg() or WRITE_ONCE() the rcpu->prog, so what does READ_ONCE()
> serve in this context? Imho, it should probably just be deleted and plain rcpu->prog used
> to avoid confusion.

Hi Daniel,

ack, I will fix it in v6

> 
> > +	for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> > +		struct xdp_frame *xdpf = frames[i];
> > +		u32 act;
> > +		int err;
> > +
> > +		rxq.dev = xdpf->dev_rx;
> > +		rxq.mem = xdpf->mem;
> > +		/* TODO: report queue_index to xdp_rxq_info */
> > +
> > +		xdp_convert_frame_to_buff(xdpf, &xdp);
> > +
> > +		act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(prog, &xdp);
> > +		switch (act) {
> > +		case XDP_PASS:
> > +			err = xdp_update_frame_from_buff(&xdp, xdpf);
> > +			if (err < 0) {
> > +				xdp_return_frame(xdpf);
> > +				stats->drop++;
> > +			} else {
> > +				frames[nframes++] = xdpf;
> > +				stats->pass++;
> > +			}
> > +			break;
> > +		default:
> > +			bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
> > +			/* fallthrough */
> > +		case XDP_DROP:
> > +			xdp_return_frame(xdpf);
> > +			stats->drop++;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	xdp_clear_return_frame_no_direct();
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > +	return nframes;
> > +}
> [...]
> > +bool cpu_map_prog_allowed(struct bpf_map *map)
> > +{
> > +	return map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP &&
> > +	       map->value_size != offsetofend(struct bpf_cpumap_val, qsize);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __cpu_map_load_bpf_program(struct bpf_cpu_map_entry *rcpu, int fd)
> > +{
> > +	struct bpf_prog *prog;
> > +
> > +	prog = bpf_prog_get_type_dev(fd, BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, false);
> 
> Nit: why the _dev variant; just use bpf_prog_get_type()?

ack, I will fix in v6

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> > +	if (IS_ERR(prog))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(prog);
> > +
> > +	if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_XDP_CPUMAP) {
> > +		bpf_prog_put(prog);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rcpu->value.bpf_prog.id = prog->aux->id;
> > +	rcpu->prog = prog;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)