netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API

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: <87pmyf8hp1.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:51:22 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:

> On 4/28/21 12:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
> [...]
>>> Small addendum:
>>>
>>>       DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_hook, hook, .ifindex = 42, .which = BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS);
>>>
>>>       err = bpf_tc_hook_create(&hook);
>>>       [...]
>>>
>>> ... is also possible, of course, and then both bpf_tc_hook_{create,destroy}() are symmetric.
>> 
>> It should be allowed, but it wouldn't actually make any difference which
>> combination of TC_INGRESS and TC_EGRESS you specify, as long as one of
>> them is set, right? I.e., we just attach the clsact qdisc in both
>> cases...
>
> Yes, that is correct, for the bpf_tc_hook_create() whether you pass in BPF_TC_INGRESS,
> BPF_TC_EGRESS or BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS, you'll end up creating clsact qdisc in
> either of the three cases. Only the bpf_tc_hook_destroy() differs
> between all of them.

Right, just checking. Other than that, I like your proposal; it loses
the "automatic removal of qdisc if we added it" feature, but that's
probably OK: less magic is good. And as long as bpf_tc_hook_create()
returns EEXIST if the qdisc already exists, the caller can do the same
thing if they want.

-Toke