[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6594a0fc51d1d_11e86208c3@john.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 15:49:16 -0800
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: rivendell7@...il.com,
kuniyu@...zon.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/5] fix sockmap + stream af_unix memleak
Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:23 PM -08, John Fastabend wrote:
> > There was a memleak when streaming af_unix sockets were inserted into
> > multiple sockmap slots and/or maps. This is because each insert would
> > call a proto update operatino and these must be allowed to be called
> > multiple times. The streaming af_unix implementation recently added
> > a refcnt to handle a use after free issue, however it introduced a
> > memleak when inserted into multiple maps.
> >
> > This series fixes the memleak, adds a note in the code so we remember
> > that proto updates need to support this. And then we add three tests
> > for each of the slightly different iterations of adding sockets into
> > multiple maps. I kept them as 3 independent test cases here. I have
> > some slight preference for this they could however be a single test,
> > but then you don't get to run them independently which was sort of
> > useful while debugging.
> >
> > John Fastabend (5):
> > bpf: sockmap, fix proto update hook to avoid dup calls
> > bpf: sockmap, added comments describing update proto rules
> > bpf: sockmap, add tests for proto updates many to single map
> > bpf: sockmap, add tests for proto updates single socket to many map
> > bpf: sockmap, add tests for proto updates replace socket
> >
> > include/linux/skmsg.h | 5 +
> > net/unix/unix_bpf.c | 21 +-
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 199 +++++++++++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Sorry for the delay. I was out.
Thanks for the review.
>
> This LGTM with some room for improvement in tests.
> You repeat the code to create different kind of sockets in each test.
> That could be refactored to use some kind of a factory helper.
Yeah, my first attempt was uglier than the repeated setup in my
opinion. So figured I would get this out and think a bit more
about it. Lets see if BPF maintainers want me to fix the typo
on Reported-by or if it can be fixed on merged.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists