netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next v1 3/7] bpf: Support pulling non-linear xdp data

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: <20250825153923.0d98c69d@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 15:39:23 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
 martin.lau@...nel.org, mohsin.bashr@...il.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
 tariqt@...dia.com, mbloch@...dia.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
 kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v1 3/7] bpf: Support pulling non-linear xdp data

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 12:39:14 -0700 Amery Hung wrote:
> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_xdp_pull_data(struct xdp_md *x, u32 len, u64 flags)
> +{
> +	struct xdp_buff *xdp = (struct xdp_buff *)x;
> +	struct skb_shared_info *sinfo = xdp_get_shared_info_from_buff(xdp);
> +	void *data_end, *data_hard_end = xdp_data_hard_end(xdp);
> +	int i, delta, buff_len, n_frags_free = 0, len_free = 0;
> +
> +	buff_len = xdp_get_buff_len(xdp);
> +
> +	if (unlikely(len > buff_len))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!len)
> +		len = xdp_get_buff_len(xdp);
> +
> +	data_end = xdp->data + len;
> +	delta = data_end - xdp->data_end;
> +
> +	if (delta <= 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(data_end > data_hard_end))
> +		return -EINVAL;

Is this safe against pointers wrapping on 32b systems?

Maybe it's better to do:

	 if (unlikely(data_hard_end - xdp->data_end < delta))

?

> +	for (i = 0; i < sinfo->nr_frags && delta; i++) {
> +		skb_frag_t *frag = &sinfo->frags[i];
> +		u32 shrink = min_t(u32, delta, skb_frag_size(frag));
> +
> +		memcpy(xdp->data_end + len_free, skb_frag_address(frag), shrink);
> +
> +		len_free += shrink;
> +		delta -= shrink;
> +		if (bpf_xdp_shrink_data(xdp, frag, shrink, false))
> +			n_frags_free++;

possibly

		else
			break;

and then you don't have to check delta in the for loop condition?

> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < sinfo->nr_frags - n_frags_free; i++) {
> +		memcpy(&sinfo->frags[i], &sinfo->frags[i + n_frags_free],
> +		       sizeof(skb_frag_t));

This feels like it'd really want to be a memmove(), no?

> +	}
> +
> +	sinfo->nr_frags -= n_frags_free;
> +	sinfo->xdp_frags_size -= len_free;
> +	xdp->data_end = data_end;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(!sinfo->nr_frags))
> +		xdp_buff_clear_frags_flag(xdp);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}