[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f3159c8-d2fe-4fc0-8f09-260aa84e12bd@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:57:58 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, 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, horms@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 01/12] bpf: add support for bpf_setsockopt()
On 2/5/25 7:34 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 11:22 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jason Xing wrote:
>>> Users can write the following code to enable the bpf extension:
>>> int flags = SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING;
>>> int opts = SK_BPF_CB_FLAGS;
>>> bpf_setsockopt(skops, SOL_SOCKET, opts, &flags, sizeof(flags));
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/net/sock.h | 3 +++
>>> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8 ++++++++
>>> net/core/filter.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
>>> 4 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
>>> index 8036b3b79cd8..7916982343c6 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/sock.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
>>> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ struct sk_filter;
>>> * @sk_stamp: time stamp of last packet received
>>> * @sk_stamp_seq: lock for accessing sk_stamp on 32 bit architectures only
>>> * @sk_tsflags: SO_TIMESTAMPING flags
>>> + * @sk_bpf_cb_flags: used in bpf_setsockopt()
>>> * @sk_use_task_frag: allow sk_page_frag() to use current->task_frag.
>>> * Sockets that can be used under memory reclaim should
>>> * set this to false.
>>> @@ -445,6 +446,8 @@ struct sock {
>>> u32 sk_reserved_mem;
>>> int sk_forward_alloc;
>>> u32 sk_tsflags;
>>> +#define SK_BPF_CB_FLAG_TEST(SK, FLAG) ((SK)->sk_bpf_cb_flags & (FLAG))
>>> + u32 sk_bpf_cb_flags;
>>> __cacheline_group_end(sock_write_rxtx);
>>>
>>> __cacheline_group_begin(sock_write_tx);
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>> index 2acf9b336371..6116eb3d1515 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>> @@ -6913,6 +6913,13 @@ enum {
>>> BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS = 0x7F,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +/* Definitions for bpf_sk_cb_flags */
>>> +enum {
>>> + SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING = 1<<0,
>>> + SK_BPF_CB_MASK = (SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING - 1) |
>>> + SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> /* List of known BPF sock_ops operators.
>>> * New entries can only be added at the end
>>> */
>>> @@ -7091,6 +7098,7 @@ enum {
>>> TCP_BPF_SYN_IP = 1006, /* Copy the IP[46] and TCP header */
>>> TCP_BPF_SYN_MAC = 1007, /* Copy the MAC, IP[46], and TCP header */
>>> TCP_BPF_SOCK_OPS_CB_FLAGS = 1008, /* Get or Set TCP sock ops flags */
>>> + SK_BPF_CB_FLAGS = 1009, /* Used to set socket bpf flags */
>>> };
>>>
>>> enum {
>>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>>> index 2ec162dd83c4..1c6c07507a78 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>> @@ -5222,6 +5222,25 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_socket_uid_proto = {
>>> .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static int sk_bpf_set_get_cb_flags(struct sock *sk, char *optval, bool getopt)
>>> +{
>>> + u32 sk_bpf_cb_flags;
>>> +
>>> + if (getopt) {
>>> + *(u32 *)optval = sk->sk_bpf_cb_flags;
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + sk_bpf_cb_flags = *(u32 *)optval;
>>> +
>>> + if (sk_bpf_cb_flags & ~SK_BPF_CB_MASK)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + sk->sk_bpf_cb_flags = sk_bpf_cb_flags;
>>
>> I don't know BPF internals that well:
>>
>> Is there mutual exclusion between these sol_socket_sockopt calls?
Yep. There is a sock_owned_by_me() in the earlier code path of sol_socket_sockopt.
Another reader is at patch 11 tcp_tx_timestamp() which should have owned the
sock also.
>> Or do these sk field accesses need WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE.
> this potential data race issue, just in case bpf program doesn't use
> it as we expect, I think I will add the this annotation in v9.
Jason, it should not have data race issue in sol_socket_sockopt(). bpf program
cannot use the sol_socket_sockopt without a lock. Patch 4 was added exactly to
ensure that.
The situation is similar to the existing tcp_sk(sk)->bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags. It
is also a plain access such that it is clear all read/write is under the
sock_owned_by_me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists