netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bpf: add TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX for bpf

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+tcoBDS=ou-XLgwoBabSJ5SvE0z9zgnab_1ySWfnrgC93Ctg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 07:21:23 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, 
	andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, 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, 
	ncardwell@...gle.com, kuniyu@...zon.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bpf: add TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX for bpf_setsockopt

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:48 PM Stanislav Fomichev
<stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/14, Jason Xing wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 7:41 AM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/13, Jason Xing wrote:
> > > > Support bpf_setsockopt() to set the maximum value of RTO for
> > > > BPF program.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst | 3 ++-
> > > >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h               | 2 ++
> > > >  net/core/filter.c                      | 6 ++++++
> > > >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h         | 2 ++
> > > >  4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
> > > > index 054561f8dcae..78eb0959438a 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.rst
> > > > @@ -1241,7 +1241,8 @@ tcp_rto_min_us - INTEGER
> > > >
> > > >  tcp_rto_max_ms - INTEGER
> > > >       Maximal TCP retransmission timeout (in ms).
> > > > -     Note that TCP_RTO_MAX_MS socket option has higher precedence.
> > > > +     Note that TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX and TCP_RTO_MAX_MS socket option have the
> > > > +     higher precedence for configuring this setting.
> > >
> > > The cover letter needs more explanation about the motivation. And
> > > the precedence as well.
> >
> > I am targeting the net-next tree because of recent changes[1] made by
> > Eric. It probably hasn't merged into the bpf-next tree.
> >
> > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=ae9b3c0e79bc
> >
> > >
> > > WRT precedence, can you install setsockopt cgroup program and filter out
> > > calls to TCP_RTO_MAX_MS?
> >
> > Yesterday, as suggested by Kuniyuki, I decided to re-use the same
> > logic of TCP_RTO_MAX_MS for bpf_setsockopt():
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index 2ec162dd83c4..ffec7b4357f9 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -5382,6 +5382,7 @@ static int sol_tcp_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int optname,
> >         case TCP_USER_TIMEOUT:
> >         case TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT:
> >         case TCP_SAVE_SYN:
> > +       case TCP_RTO_MAX_MS:
> >                 if (*optlen != sizeof(int))
> >                         return -EINVAL;
> >                 break;
> >
> > Are you referring to using the previous way (by introducing a new flag
> > for BPF) because we need to know the explicit precedence between
> > setsockopt() and bpf_setsockopt() or other reasons? If so, I think
> > there are more places than setsockopt() to modify.
> >
> > And, sorry that I don't follow what you meant by saying "install
> > setsockopt cgroup program" here. Please provide more hints.
>
> Ah, sorry, I misread it as bpf options taking precedence over tcp ones;
> ignore the suggestion about setsockopt cgroup prog.
>
> And yes, reusing the logic of TCP_RTO_MAX_MS looks better!

Okay, then I will send a patch soon. BTW, which tree should this
series go in? Should I use the prefix '[patch bpf-next]' or something
else in the title?

Thanks,
Jason