netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 1/2] net: bridge: add unstable br_fdb_find_port_from

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]

Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 17:33:47 +0530
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
        komachi.yoshiki@...il.com, brouer@...hat.com,
        andrii.nakryiko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 1/2] net: bridge: add unstable
 br_fdb_find_port_from_ifindex helper

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 05:12:15PM IST, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > [ snip to focus on the API ]
> >
> > > +int br_fdb_find_port_from_ifindex(struct xdp_md *xdp_ctx,
> > > +				  struct bpf_fdb_lookup *opt,
> > > +				  u32 opt__sz)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct xdp_buff *ctx = (struct xdp_buff *)xdp_ctx;
> > > +	struct net_bridge_port *port;
> > > +	struct net_device *dev;
> > > +	int ret = -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_fdb_lookup) != NF_BPF_FDB_OPTS_SZ);
> > > +	if (!opt || opt__sz != sizeof(struct bpf_fdb_lookup))
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> >
> > Why is the BUILD_BUG_ON needed? Or why is the NF_BPF_FDB_OPTS_SZ
> > constant even needed?
>
> I added it to be symmetric with respect to ct counterpart

But the constant needs to be an enum, not a define, otherwise it will not be
emitted to BTF, I added it so that one could easily check the struct 'version'
(because sizeof is not relocated in BPF programs).

Yes, bpf_core_field_exists and would also work, but the size is fixed anyway and
we need to check it, so it felt better to give it a name and also make it
visible to BPF programs at the same time.

>
>  [...]

--
Kartikeya