netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v3 4/5] skmsg: use skb ext instead of TCP_SKB

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: <CAM_iQpWzRpfWwZHPK=+KWbu+nLxJ=GKRHNC+97NT2DoN0qRc2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:04:00 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
        jiang.wang@...edance.com, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v3 4/5] skmsg: use skb ext instead of TCP_SKB_CB

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:54 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:57 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > For TCP case we can continue to use CB and not pay the price. For UDP
> > > and AF_UNIX we can do the extra alloc.
> >
> > I see your point, but specializing TCP case does not give much benefit
> > here, the skmsg code would have to check skb->protocol etc. to decide
> > whether to use TCP_SKB_CB() or skb_ext:
> >
> > if (skb->protocol == ...)
> >   TCP_SKB_CB(skb) = ...;
> > else
> >   ext = skb_ext_find(skb);
> >
> > which looks ugly to me. And I doubt skb->protocol alone is sufficient to
> > distinguish TCP, so we may end up having more checks above.
> >
> > So do you really want to trade code readability with an extra alloc?
>
> Above is ugly. So I look at where the patch replaces things,
>
> sk_psock_tls_strp_read(), this is TLS specific read hook so can't really
> work in generic case anyways.
>
> sk_psock_strp_read(), will you have UDP, AF_UNIX stream parsers? Do these
> even work outside TCP cases.
>
> For these ones: sk_psock_verdict_apply(), sk_psock_verdict_recv(),
> sk_psock_backlog(), can't we just do some refactoring around their
> hook points so we know the context. For example sk_psock_tls_verdict_apply
> is calling sk_psock_skb_redirect(). Why not have a sk_psock_unix_redirect()
> and a sk_psock_udp_redirect(). There are likely some optimizations we can
> deploy this way. We've already don this for tls and sk_msg types for example.
>
> Then the helpers will know their types by program type, just use the right
> variants.
>
> So not suggestiong if/else the checks so much as having per type hooks.
>

Hmm, but sk_psock_backlog() is still the only one that handles all three
above cases, right? It uses TCP_SKB_CB() too and more importantly it
is also why we can't use a per-cpu struct here (see bpf_redirect_info).

Thanks.