netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 3/7] bpf: implement devtx hook points

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: <CAKH8qBt1hk2Gi0tj+j5LD7nphatZN_BbSOFwY8hgjBp6D9Xh4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 10:32:27 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.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, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 3/7] bpf: implement devtx hook points

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:47 PM Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/23 10:23, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> ..... cut .....
> > +
> > +__diag_push();
> > +__diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes",
> > +               "Global functions as their definitions will be in vmlinux BTF");
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_devtx_sb_attach - Attach devtx 'packet submit' program
> > + * @ifindex: netdev interface index.
> > + * @prog_fd: BPF program file descriptor.
> > + *
> > + * Return:
> > + * * Returns 0 on success or ``-errno`` on error.
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_devtx_sb_attach(int ifindex, int prog_fd)
> > +{
> > +     struct net_device *netdev;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     netdev = dev_get_by_index(current->nsproxy->net_ns, ifindex);
> > +     if (!netdev)
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&devtx_attach_lock);
> > +     ret = __bpf_devtx_attach(netdev, prog_fd, "devtx_sb", &netdev->devtx_sb);
> > +     mutex_unlock(&devtx_attach_lock);
> > +
> > +     dev_put(netdev);
> > +
> > +     return ret;
> > +}
>
> How about adding another detach kfunc instead of overloading
> this one? It is easier to understand.

Originally I was planning to switch to links which would have avoided
the need of an explicit detach.
But, as discussed, I'll drop it all for v2 and will go with regular fentry.