netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] bpf: enable bpf_{g,s}etsockopt in BPF_CGROUP_UDP{4,6}

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKH8qBvGQ-JpBg3J4uH4oSytmT3anLLLdt4frWiKHDaT3yVfsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:14:42 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] bpf: enable bpf_{g,s}etsockopt in BPF_CGROUP_UDP{4,6}_RECVMSG

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:08 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/29/21 1:59 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/28/21 12:28 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >>> Those hooks run as BPF_CGROUP_RUN_SA_PROG_LOCK and operate on
> >>> a locked socket.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    net/core/filter.c                                 | 4 ++++
> >>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg4_prog.c | 5 +++++
> >>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg6_prog.c | 5 +++++
> >>>    3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> >>> index ba436b1d70c2..e15d4741719a 100644
> >>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> >>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> >>> @@ -7023,6 +7023,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT:
> >>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG:
> >>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME:
> >>> @@ -7039,6 +7041,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT:
> >>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG:
> >>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG:
> >>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME:
> >>
> >> Looks good overall, also thanks for adding the test cases! I was about to apply, but noticed one
> >> small nit that would be good to get resolved before that. Above you now list all the attach hooks
> >> for sock_addr ctx, so we should just remove the whole switch that tests on prog->expected_attach_type
> >> altogether in this last commit.
> > Sure, I can resend tomorrow.
> > But do you think it's safe and there won't ever be another sock_addr
> > hook that runs with an unlocked socket?
>
> Ok, that rationale seems reasonable to keep the series as is. It probably makes sense to add a
> small comment at least to the commit log to explain the reasoning, I can do so while applying.
> So no need for v3, thanks!
Sounds good, thank you!