netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v5 1/3] bpf: fix wrong copied

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250114100108.121f9d5a@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 10:01:08 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@....com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, jakub@...udflare.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, ast@...nel.org,
 edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, song@...nel.org,
 andrii@...nel.org, mhal@...x.co, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 daniel@...earbox.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, horms@...nel.org,
 corbet@....net, eddyz87@...il.com, cong.wang@...edance.com,
 shuah@...nel.org, mykolal@...com, jolsa@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com,
 sdf@...ichev.me, kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v5 1/3] bpf: fix wrong copied_seq calculation

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:35:34 +0800 Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > To state the obvious feels like the abstraction between TCP and psock
> > has broken down pretty severely at this stage. You're modifying TCP
> > and straight up calling TCP functions from skmsg.c :(
> >  
> You are right!
> 
> How about we construct code like this:
> 
> sk_psock_strp_read_sock(strp)    skmsg.c
>     tcp_bpf_strp_read_sock(sk)   tcp_bpf.c
>         tcp_read_sock_noack(sk)  tcp.c
> 
> In skmsg.c we just register read_sock handler for strparser, then move
> core code into tcp_bpf.c. I believe it makes more sense than before as
> there already exist some psock with tcp operation(especially ops handler)
> implemented in tcp_bpf.c.

Yes, that's slightly better, thanks