netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] net: Add splice

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: <CAAVpQUBjwcpDYAafhoVA9jch5M0WVu3eUudnr3w5S=bjgDaXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:48:11 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: vincent.whitchurch@...adoghq.comy, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] net: Add splice_read to prot

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:27 AM John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 2025-07-09 14:47:57, Vincent Whitchurch via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...adoghq.com>
> >
> > The TCP BPF code will need to override splice_read(), so add it to prot.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...adoghq.com>
> > ---
> >  include/net/inet_common.h |  3 +++
> >  include/net/sock.h        |  3 +++
> >  net/ipv4/af_inet.c        | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c       |  1 +
> >  net/ipv6/af_inet6.c       |  2 +-
> >  net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c       |  1 +
> >  6 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/inet_common.h b/include/net/inet_common.h
> > index c17a6585d0b0..2a6480d0d575 100644
> > --- a/include/net/inet_common.h
> > +++ b/include/net/inet_common.h
> > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ void __inet_accept(struct socket *sock, struct socket *newsock,
> >                  struct sock *newsk);
> >  int inet_send_prepare(struct sock *sk);
> >  int inet_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size);
> > +ssize_t inet_splice_read(struct socket *sk, loff_t *ppos,
> > +                      struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, size_t len,
> > +                      unsigned int flags);
> >  void inet_splice_eof(struct socket *sock);
> >  int inet_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size,
> >                int flags);
> > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> > index 4c37015b7cf7..4bdebcbcca38 100644
> > --- a/include/net/sock.h
> > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> > @@ -1280,6 +1280,9 @@ struct proto {
> >                                          size_t len);
> >       int                     (*recvmsg)(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
> >                                          size_t len, int flags, int *addr_len);
> > +     ssize_t                 (*splice_read)(struct socket *sock,  loff_t *ppos,
> > +                                            struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, size_t len,
> > +                                            unsigned int flags);
> >       void                    (*splice_eof)(struct socket *sock);
> >       int                     (*bind)(struct sock *sk,
> >                                       struct sockaddr *addr, int addr_len);
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > index 76e38092cd8a..9c521d252f66 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > @@ -868,6 +868,17 @@ void inet_splice_eof(struct socket *sock)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inet_splice_eof);
> >
> > +ssize_t inet_splice_read(struct socket *sock, loff_t *ppos,
> > +                      struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, size_t len,
> > +                      unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > +     struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > +
> > +     return INDIRECT_CALL_1(sk->sk_prot->splice_read, tcp_splice_read, sock,
> > +                            ppos, pipe, len, flags);
> > +}
>
> Could we do a indirect_call_2 here?  something like this?
>
>   INDIRECT_CALL_2(sk->sk_prot->splice_read, tcp_splice_read ...
>
> Otherwise the series looks reasonable to me.

What's the second candidate ?
I think we should specify the built-in one and cannot use bpf one.