netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] xsk: allow remap of fill and/or completion rings

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: <CAJ8uoz1kbFsttvWNTUdtYcwEa=hQvky2z0Jfn0=9b5v6m_FVXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:27:18 +0100
From:   Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nuno Gonçalves <nunog@...4.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] xsk: allow remap of fill and/or completion rings

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 12:09, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:53:23AM +0000, Nuno Gonçalves wrote:
> > The remap of fill and completion rings was frowned upon as they
> > control the usage of UMEM which does not support concurrent use.
> > At the same time this would disallow the remap of this rings
> > into another process.
> >
> > A possible use case is that the user wants to transfer the socket/
> > UMEM ownerwhip to another process (via SYS_pidfd_getfd) and so

nit: ownership

> > would need to also remap this rings.
> >
> > This will have no impact on current usages and just relaxes the
> > remap limitation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nuno Gonçalves <nunog@...4.com>
> > ---
> >  net/xdp/xsk.c | 9 ++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > index 2ac58b282b5eb..2af4ff64b22bd 100644
> > --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> > @@ -1300,10 +1300,11 @@ static int xsk_mmap(struct file *file, struct socket *sock,
> >  {
> >       loff_t offset = (loff_t)vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >       unsigned long size = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
> > +     int state = READ_ONCE(xs->state);

Reverse Christmas Tree notation here please. Move it one line down to
after the *xs declaration.

> >       struct xdp_sock *xs = xdp_sk(sock->sk);
> >       struct xsk_queue *q = NULL;
> >
> > -     if (READ_ONCE(xs->state) != XSK_READY)
> > +     if (!(state == XSK_READY || state == XSK_BOUND))
>
> This if(..) is actually:
>  if (state != XSK_READY && state != XSK_BOUND)

Nuno had it like that to start with when he sent the patch privately
to me, but I responded that I prefered the current one. It is easier
to understand if read out aloud IMO. Do not have any strong feelings
either way since the statements are equivalent.

> Thanks