netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/11] net-timestamp: support hwtstamp print for bpf extension

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: <fd65a3e4-bc84-426d-b60b-eb4064dd7731@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:17:47 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
 willemb@...gle.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
 haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 07/11] net-timestamp: support hwtstamp print
 for bpf extension

On 12/13/24 4:02 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 7:15 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/24 7:13 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
>>>>> -static void __skb_tstamp_tx_bpf(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int tstype)
>>>>> +static void __skb_tstamp_tx_bpf(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>>> +                             struct skb_shared_hwtstamps *hwtstamps,
>>>>> +                             int tstype)
>>>>>     {
>>>>> +     struct timespec64 tstamp;
>>>>> +     u32 args[2] = {0, 0};
>>>>>         int op;
>>>>>
>>>>>         if (!sk)
>>>>> @@ -5552,6 +5556,11 @@ static void __skb_tstamp_tx_bpf(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int tstype
>>>>>                 break;
>>>>>         case SCM_TSTAMP_SND:
>>>>>                 op = BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SW_OPT_CB;
>>>>> +             if (hwtstamps) {
>>>>> +                     tstamp = ktime_to_timespec64(hwtstamps->hwtstamp);
>>>> Avoid this conversion which is likely not useful to the bpf prog. Directly pass
>>>> hwtstamps->hwtstamp (in ns?) to the bpf prog. Put lower 32bits in args[0] and
>>>> higher 32bits in args[1].
>>> It makes sense.
>>
>> When replying the patch 2 thread, I noticed it may not even have to pass the
>> hwtstamps in args here.
>>
>> Can "*skb_hwtstamps(skb) = *hwtstamps;" be done before calling the bpf prog?
>> Then the bpf prog can directly get it from skb_shinfo(skb)->hwtstamps.
>> It is like reading other fields in skb_shinfo(skb), e.g. the
>> skb_shinfo(skb)->tskey discussed in patch 10. The bpf prog will have a more
>> consistent experience in reading different fields of the skb_shinfo(skb).
>> skb_shinfo(skb)->hwtstamps is a more intuitive place to obtain the hwtstamp than
>> the broken up args[0] and args[1]. On top of that, there is also an older
>> "skb_hwtstamp" field in "struct bpf_sock_ops".
> 
> Right, right, last night, fortunately, I also spotted it. Let the bpf
> prog parse the shared info from skb then. A new callback for hwtstamp
> is needed, I suppose.

Why a new callback is needed? "*skb_hwtstamps(skb) = *hwtstamps;" cannot be done 
in __skb_tstamp_tx_bpf?