netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/11] bpf: Support inlined/unrolled kfuncs for xdp metadata

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: <20221116124256.04a75fba@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:42:56 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@...el.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>,
        Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@...hat.com>, xdp-hints@...-project.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/11] bpf: Support inlined/unrolled kfuncs for
 xdp metadata

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 19:02:02 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 117e830cabb0..a2227f4f4a0b 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -9258,6 +9258,13 @@ static int dev_xdp_attach(struct net_device *dev, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack
>  			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  		}
>  
> +		if (new_prog &&
> +		    new_prog->aux->xdp_kfunc_ndo &&
> +		    new_prog->aux->xdp_kfunc_ndo != dev->netdev_ops) {
> +			NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Cannot attach to a different target device");
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}

This chunk can go up into the large

	if (new_prog) {
		...

list of checks?

nit: aux->xdp_kfunc_ndo sounds like you're storing the kfunc NDO,
     not all ndos. Throw in an 's' at the end, or some such?