netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v12 01/12] bpf: add networking timestamping support to 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+tcoA8R8p28fwtxZx_few+iywY8myEX41ft1+5-FjjQ0DGFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:05:19 +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, shuah@...nel.org, ykolal@...com, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v12 01/12] bpf: add networking timestamping
 support to bpf_get/setsockopt()

On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 3:48 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 2/18/25 11:03 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 1:02 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The new SK_BPF_CB_FLAGS and new SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING are
> >> added to bpf_get/setsockopt. The later patches will implement the
> >> BPF networking timestamping. The BPF program will use
> >> bpf_setsockopt(SK_BPF_CB_FLAGS, SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING) to
> >> enable the BPF networking timestamping on a socket.
> >>
> >> 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 fff6cdb8d11a..fa666d51dffe 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >> @@ -6916,6 +6916,13 @@ enum {
> >>          BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS       = 0x7F,
> >>   };
> >>
> >> +/* Definitions for bpf_sk_cb_flags */
> >
> > nit: s/bpf_sk_cb_flags/sk_bpf_cb_flags
> >
> > I will correct it.
> >
> >> +enum {
> >> +       SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING       = 1<<0,
> >> +       SK_BPF_CB_MASK                  = (SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING - 1) |
> >> +                                          SK_BPF_CB_TX_TIMESTAMPING
> >> +};
> >
> > Martin, I would like to know if it's necessary to update the above new
> > enum in tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h as well?
>
> Yes, the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h should be updated. If you diff them, two
> of them should be exactly the same. This patch should do the same to keep the
> tools bpf.h up-to-date.
>
> For other headers in tools/include/uapi, I guess it depends. e.g. the tcp.h in
> your another RTO patch, the two tcp.h files are very different already and the
> selftest does not need the new macro either.

I learned. Thanks.