netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v4 02/11] skmsg: introduce a spinlock to protect ingress

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: <871rcm3p6m.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:28:01 +0100
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com, wangdongdong.6@...edance.com,
        jiang.wang@...edance.com, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v4 02/11] skmsg: introduce a spinlock to
 protect ingress_msg

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:32 AM CET, Cong Wang wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
>
> Currently we rely on lock_sock to protect ingress_msg,
> it is too big for this, we can actually just use a spinlock
> to protect this list like protecting other skb queues.
>
> __tcp_bpf_recvmsg() is still special because of peeking,
> it still has to use lock_sock.
>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> ---

One nit below.

Acked-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>

>  include/linux/skmsg.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  net/core/skmsg.c      |  3 +++
>  net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c    | 18 ++++++-----------
>  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> index 6c09d94be2e9..7333bf881b81 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct sk_psock {
>  #endif
>  	struct sk_buff_head		ingress_skb;
>  	struct list_head		ingress_msg;
> +	spinlock_t			ingress_lock;
>  	unsigned long			state;
>  	struct list_head		link;
>  	spinlock_t			link_lock;
> @@ -284,7 +285,45 @@ static inline struct sk_psock *sk_psock(const struct sock *sk)
>  static inline void sk_psock_queue_msg(struct sk_psock *psock,
>  				      struct sk_msg *msg)
>  {
> +	spin_lock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
>  	list_add_tail(&msg->list, &psock->ingress_msg);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&psock->ingress_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct sk_msg *sk_psock_deque_msg(struct sk_psock *psock)

Should be sk_psock_deque*ue*_msg()?

[...]