| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <dd7aaf1e-9abf-0b9c-bfba-ee3bc4cfa852@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:03:37 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
razor@...ckwall.org, sdf@...gle.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kuba@...nel.org, dxu@...uu.xyz, joe@...ium.io, toke@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] libbpf: Add opts-based
attach/detach/query API for tcx
On 7/11/23 6:00 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:12 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Extend libbpf attach opts and add a new detach opts API so this can be used
>> to add/remove fd-based tcx BPF programs. The old-style bpf_prog_detach() and
>> bpf_prog_detach2() APIs are refactored to reuse the new bpf_prog_detach_opts()
>> internally.
>>
>> The bpf_prog_query_opts() API got extended to be able to handle the new
>> link_ids, link_attach_flags and revision fields.
>>
>> For concrete usage examples, see the extensive selftests that have been
>> developed as part of this series.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> ---
>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 12 +++--
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
>> 4 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Thanks for doc comments! Looks good, left a few nits with suggestions
> for simplifying code, but it's minor.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> index 3b0da19715e1..3dfc43b477c3 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> @@ -629,55 +629,87 @@ int bpf_prog_attach(int prog_fd, int target_fd, enum bpf_attach_type type,
>> return bpf_prog_attach_opts(prog_fd, target_fd, type, &opts);
>> }
>>
>> -int bpf_prog_attach_opts(int prog_fd, int target_fd,
>> - enum bpf_attach_type type,
>> - const struct bpf_prog_attach_opts *opts)
>> +int bpf_prog_attach_opts(int prog_fd, int target,
>> + enum bpf_attach_type type,
>> + const struct bpf_prog_attach_opts *opts)
>> {
>> - const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, replace_bpf_fd);
>> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, expected_revision);
>> + __u32 relative_id, flags;
>> union bpf_attr attr;
>> - int ret;
>> + int ret, relative;
>>
>> if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_prog_attach_opts))
>> return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>>
>> + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0);
>> + relative = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0);
>> + flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
>> +
>> + /* validate we don't have unexpected combinations of non-zero fields */
>> + if (relative > 0 && relative_id)
>> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>
> I left a comment in the next patch about this, I think it should be
> simple `if (relative_fd && relative_id) { /* bad */ }`. But see the
> next patch for why.
>
>> + if (relative_id) {
>> + relative = relative_id;
>> + flags |= BPF_F_ID;
>> + }
>
> it's a bit hard to follow as written (to me at least). How about a
> slight variation that has less in-place state update
>
>
> int relative_fd, relative_id;
>
> relative_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0);
> relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0);
>
> /* only one of fd or id can be specified */
> if (relative_fd && relative_id > 0)
> return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>
> ... then see further below
>
>> +
>> memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
>> - attr.target_fd = target_fd;
>> - attr.attach_bpf_fd = prog_fd;
>> - attr.attach_type = type;
>> - attr.attach_flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
>> - attr.replace_bpf_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, replace_prog_fd, 0);
>> + attr.target_fd = target;
>> + attr.attach_bpf_fd = prog_fd;
>> + attr.attach_type = type;
>> + attr.attach_flags = flags;
>> + attr.relative_fd = relative;
>
> instead of two lines above, have simple if/else
>
> if (relative_if) {
> attr.relative_id = relative_id;
> attr.attach_flags = flags | BPF_F_ID;
> } else {
> attr.relative_fd = relative_fd;
> attr.attach_flags = flags;
> }
>
> This combined with the piece above seems very straightforward in terms
> of what is checked and what's passed into attr. WDYT?
All sgtm, I've implemented the suggestions locally for v5.
>> + attr.replace_bpf_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, replace_fd, 0);
>> + attr.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0);
>>
>> ret = sys_bpf(BPF_PROG_ATTACH, &attr, attr_sz);
>> return libbpf_err_errno(ret);
>> }
>>
>> -int bpf_prog_detach(int target_fd, enum bpf_attach_type type)
>> +int bpf_prog_detach_opts(int prog_fd, int target,
>> + enum bpf_attach_type type,
>> + const struct bpf_prog_detach_opts *opts)
>> {
>> - const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, replace_bpf_fd);
>> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, expected_revision);
>> + __u32 relative_id, flags;
>> union bpf_attr attr;
>> - int ret;
>> + int ret, relative;
>> +
>> + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_prog_detach_opts))
>> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>> +
>> + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0);
>> + relative = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0);
>> + flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
>> +
>> + /* validate we don't have unexpected combinations of non-zero fields */
>> + if (relative > 0 && relative_id)
>> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
>> + if (relative_id) {
>> + relative = relative_id;
>> + flags |= BPF_F_ID;
>> + }
>
> see above, I think the same data flow simplification can be done
>
>>
>> memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
>> - attr.target_fd = target_fd;
>> - attr.attach_type = type;
>> + attr.target_fd = target;
>> + attr.attach_bpf_fd = prog_fd;
>> + attr.attach_type = type;
>> + attr.attach_flags = flags;
>> + attr.relative_fd = relative;
>> + attr.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0);
>>
>> ret = sys_bpf(BPF_PROG_DETACH, &attr, attr_sz);
>> return libbpf_err_errno(ret);
>> }
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
>> index d9ec4407befa..a95d39bbef90 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
>> @@ -396,4 +396,5 @@ LIBBPF_1.3.0 {
>> global:
>> bpf_obj_pin_opts;
>> bpf_program__attach_netfilter;
>> + bpf_prog_detach_opts;
>
> I think it sorts before bpf_program__attach_netfilter?
Yeap, also fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists