netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <86948347-529b-433a-991d-0b298776db63@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:48 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
 ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, 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 v6 2/5] net/smc: Introduce generic hook smc_ops

On 1/15/25 11:44 PM, D. Wythe wrote:
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_sysctl.c b/net/smc/smc_sysctl.c
> index 2fab6456f765..2004241c3045 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_sysctl.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_sysctl.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   #include "smc_core.h"
>   #include "smc_llc.h"
>   #include "smc_sysctl.h"
> +#include "smc_ops.h"
>   
>   static int min_sndbuf = SMC_BUF_MIN_SIZE;
>   static int min_rcvbuf = SMC_BUF_MIN_SIZE;
> @@ -30,6 +31,69 @@ static int links_per_lgr_max = SMC_LINKS_ADD_LNK_MAX;
>   static int conns_per_lgr_min = SMC_CONN_PER_LGR_MIN;
>   static int conns_per_lgr_max = SMC_CONN_PER_LGR_MAX;
>   
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMC_OPS)
> +static int smc_net_replace_smc_ops(struct net *net, const char *name)
> +{
> +	struct smc_ops *ops = NULL;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/* null or empty name ask to clear current ops */
> +	if (name && name[0]) {
> +		ops = smc_ops_find_by_name(name);
> +		if (!ops) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +		/* no change, just return */
> +		if (ops == rcu_dereference(net->smc.ops)) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	if (!ops || bpf_try_module_get(ops, ops->owner)) {
> +		/* xhcg */

typo. I noticed it only because...

> +		ops = rcu_replace_pointer(net->smc.ops, ops, true);

... rcu_replace_pointer() does not align with the above xchg comment. From 
looking into rcu_replace_pointer, it is not a xchg. It is also not obvious to me 
why it is safe to assume "true" here...

> +		/* release old ops */
> +		if (ops)
> +			bpf_module_put(ops, ops->owner);

... together with a put here on the return value of the rcu_replace_pointer.

> +	} else if (ops) {

nit. This looks redundant when looking at the "if (!ops || ..." test above

Also a nit, I would move the bpf_try_module_get() immediately after the above 
"if (ops == rcu_dereference(net->smc.ops))" test. This should simplify the later 
cases.

> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int proc_smc_ops(const struct ctl_table *ctl, int write,
> +			void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +	struct net *net = container_of(ctl->data, struct net, smc.ops);
> +	char val[SMC_OPS_NAME_MAX];
> +	const struct ctl_table tbl = {
> +		.data = val,
> +		.maxlen = SMC_OPS_NAME_MAX,
> +	};
> +	struct smc_ops *ops;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(net->smc.ops);
> +	if (ops)
> +		memcpy(val, ops->name, sizeof(ops->name));
> +	else
> +		val[0] = '\0';
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	ret = proc_dostring(&tbl, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (write)
> +		ret = smc_net_replace_smc_ops(net, val);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMC_OPS */
> +
>   static struct ctl_table smc_table[] = {
>   	{
>   		.procname       = "autocorking_size",
> @@ -99,6 +163,15 @@ static struct ctl_table smc_table[] = {
>   		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
>   		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>   	},
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMC_OPS)
> +	{
> +		.procname	= "ops",
> +		.data		= &init_net.smc.ops,
> +		.mode		= 0644,
> +		.maxlen		= SMC_OPS_NAME_MAX,
> +		.proc_handler	= proc_smc_ops,
> +	},
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMC_OPS */
>   };
>   
>   int __net_init smc_sysctl_net_init(struct net *net)
> @@ -109,6 +182,20 @@ int __net_init smc_sysctl_net_init(struct net *net)
>   	table = smc_table;
>   	if (!net_eq(net, &init_net)) {
>   		int i;
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMC_OPS)
> +		struct smc_ops *ops;
> +
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		ops = rcu_dereference(init_net.smc.ops);
> +		if (ops && ops->flags & SMC_OPS_FLAG_INHERITABLE) {
> +			if (!bpf_try_module_get(ops, ops->owner)) {
> +				rcu_read_unlock();
> +				return -EBUSY;

Not sure if it should count as error when the ops is in the process of 
un-register-ing. The next smc_sysctl_net_init will have NULL ops and succeed. 
Something for you to consider.

Also, it needs an ack from the SMC maintainer for the SMC specific parts like 
the sysctl here.