netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/5] net/smc: Introduce generic hook smc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250114095135.GB16797@j66a10360.sqa.eu95>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:51:35 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com    >
To: Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
	wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	pabeni@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
	haoluo@...gle.com, yhs@...com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
	guwen@...ux.alibaba.com, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/5] net/smc: Introduce generic hook smc_ops

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:49:44PM +0800, Dust Li wrote:
> On 2025-01-07 12:17:12, D. Wythe wrote:
> >The introduction of IPPROTO_SMC enables eBPF programs to determine
> >whether to use SMC based on the context of socket creation, such as
> >network namespaces, PID and comm name, etc.
> >
> >As a subsequent enhancement, to introduce a new generic hook that
> >allows decisions on whether to use SMC or not at runtime, including
> >but not limited to local/remote IP address or ports.
> >
> >Moreover, in the future, we can achieve more complex extensions to the
> >protocol stack by extending this ops.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >---
> > include/net/netns/smc.h |  3 ++
> > include/net/smc.h       | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > net/ipv4/tcp_output.c   | 15 +++++--
> > net/smc/Kconfig         | 12 ++++++
> > net/smc/Makefile        |  1 +
> > net/smc/smc_ops.c       | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > net/smc/smc_ops.h       | 25 +++++++++++
> > net/smc/smc_sysctl.c    | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 8 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_ops.c
> > create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_ops.h
> >
> >+
> >+struct smc_ops {
> 
> One more thing.
> Can we call it smc_bpf_ops ? I think smc_ops is a bit ambiguous.
> Same for smc_ops.h/c source file.

I don't think smc_bpf_ops is a good idea. BPF is just a way to implement
smc_ops. Similarly, we can also implement this ops within the kernel module,
just like tcp_congestion_ops dose. If you think this is ambiguous, perhaps
we can call it as smc_handshake_ops ? This should eliminate the ambiguity.

Best wishes,
D. Wythe
> 
> Best regards,
> Dust