netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next/net 2/5] bpf: Support bpf_setsockopt() for BPF_CGROUP_INET_SOCK

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: <CAAVpQUCnNbV+CcPK48qxTF812xbCeq+g7+avKRSKu2sS+oKw=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:19:31 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
	Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next/net 2/5] bpf: Support bpf_setsockopt() for BPF_CGROUP_INET_SOCK_CREATE.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 5:06 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/25 3:49 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > BTW, I'm thinking I should inherit flags from the listener
> > in sk_clone_lock() and disallow other bpf hooks.
>
> Agree and I think in general this flag should be inherited to the child. It is
> less surprising to the user.
>
> >
> > Given the listener's flag and bpf hooks come from the
> > same cgroup, there is no point having other hooks.
> iiuc, this will narrow down the use case to the create hook only? Sure, it can
> start with the create hook if there is no use case for sock_ops. sock_ops can do
> setsockopt differently based on the ip/port but I don't have a use case for now.

Yes, we can support another hook later when needed.