netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 11/12] bpf: support selective sampling for bpf timestamping

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: <CAL+tcoBMNBVpjS78syvJKqG2ZgA3FjEXm9HDPNjKXsDeekCEMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:48:37 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
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, horms@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 11/12] bpf: support selective sampling for bpf timestamping

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 3:41 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/25 2:32 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > Use __bpf_kfunc feature to allow bpf prog dynamically and selectively
>
> s/Use/Add/
>
> Remove "dynamically". A kfunc can only be called dynamically at runtime.
>
> Like:
>
> "Add the bpf_sock_ops_enable_tx_tstamp kfunc to allow BPF programs to
> selectively enable TX timestamping on a skb during tcp_sendmsg..."

Will adjust it.

>
> > to sample/track the skb. For example, the bpf prog will limit tracking
> > X numbers of packets and then will stop there instead of tracing
> > all the sendmsgs of matched flow all along.
>  > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   kernel/bpf/btf.c  |  1 +
> >   net/core/filter.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > index 8396ce1d0fba..a65e2eeffb88 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -8535,6 +8535,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_type_to_kfunc_hook(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type)
> >       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR:
> >       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCKOPT:
> >       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SYSCTL:
> > +     case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS:
> >               return BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_CGROUP;
> >       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT:
> >               return BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_SCHED_ACT;
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index 7f56d0bbeb00..db20a947e757 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -12102,6 +12102,21 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_sk_assign_tcp_reqsk(struct __sk_buff *s, struct sock *sk,
> >   #endif
> >   }
> >
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_sock_ops_enable_tx_tstamp(struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *skops)
>
> I am ok to always enable txstamp_ack here. Please still add a second "u64 flags"
> argument such that future disable/enable is still possible.

Ok. Will do it.

>
> > +{
> > +     struct sk_buff *skb;
> > +
> > +     if (skops->op != BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SND_CB)
>  > +            return -EOPNOTSUPP;> +
> > +     skb = skops->skb;
> > +     TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->txstamp_ack = 2;
>
> Willem (thanks!) has already mentioned there is a bug.
>
> This also brought up that a test is missing: the bpf timestamping and user
> space's SO_TIMESTAMPING can work without interfering others. The current test
> only has SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING on. A test is needed when both
> SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING and the user space's SO_TIMESTAMPING are on. The
> expectation is both of them will work together.

Yeah, I did miss this particular test. Let me figure out how to test
it in a proper way.

Thanks,
Jason

>
> > +     skb_shinfo(skb)->tx_flags |= SKBTX_BPF;
> > +     skb_shinfo(skb)->tskey = TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + skb->len - 1;
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >   __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> >
> >   int bpf_dynptr_from_skb_rdonly(struct __sk_buff *skb, u64 flags,
> > @@ -12135,6 +12150,10 @@ BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_kfunc_check_set_tcp_reqsk)
> >   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sk_assign_tcp_reqsk, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> >   BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_kfunc_check_set_tcp_reqsk)
> >
> > +BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_kfunc_check_set_sock_ops)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_sock_ops_enable_tx_tstamp, KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> > +BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_kfunc_check_set_sock_ops)
> > +
> >   static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_kfunc_set_skb = {
> >       .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >       .set = &bpf_kfunc_check_set_skb,
> > @@ -12155,6 +12174,11 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_kfunc_set_tcp_reqsk = {
> >       .set = &bpf_kfunc_check_set_tcp_reqsk,
> >   };
> >
> > +static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_kfunc_set_sock_ops = {
> > +     .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +     .set = &bpf_kfunc_check_set_sock_ops,
> > +};
> > +
> >   static int __init bpf_kfunc_init(void)
> >   {
> >       int ret;
> > @@ -12173,7 +12197,8 @@ static int __init bpf_kfunc_init(void)
> >       ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, &bpf_kfunc_set_xdp);
> >       ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR,
> >                                              &bpf_kfunc_set_sock_addr);
> > -     return ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_kfunc_set_tcp_reqsk);
> > +     ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_kfunc_set_tcp_reqsk);
> > +     return ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS, &bpf_kfunc_set_sock_ops);
> >   }
> >   late_initcall(bpf_kfunc_init);
> >
>