From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
To: menglong8.dong@gmail.com
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mengensun@tencent.com,
flyingpeng@tencent.com, mungerjiang@tencent.com,
Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add document for 'dst_port' of 'struct bpf_sock'
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:24:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sftbobys.fsf@cloudflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220113070245.791577-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:02 AM CET, menglong8.dong@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> The description of 'dst_port' in 'struct bpf_sock' is not accurated.
> In fact, 'dst_port' is not in network byte order, it is 'partly' in
> network byte order.
>
> We can see it in bpf_sock_convert_ctx_access():
>
>> case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port):
>> *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(
>> BPF_FIELD_SIZEOF(struct sock_common, skc_dport),
>> si->dst_reg, si->src_reg,
>> bpf_target_off(struct sock_common, skc_dport,
>> sizeof_field(struct sock_common,
>> skc_dport),
>> target_size));
>
> It simply passes 'sock_common->skc_dport' to 'bpf_sock->dst_port',
> which makes that the low 16-bits of 'dst_port' is equal to 'skc_port'
> and is in network byte order, but the high 16-bites of 'dst_port' is
> 0. And the actual port is 'bpf_ntohs((__u16)dst_port)', and
> 'bpf_ntohl(dst_port)' is totally not the right port.
>
> This is different form 'remote_port' in 'struct bpf_sock_ops' or
> 'struct __sk_buff':
>
>> case offsetof(struct __sk_buff, remote_port):
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct sock_common, skc_dport) != 2);
>>
>> *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_FIELD_SIZEOF(struct sk_buff, sk),
>> si->dst_reg, si->src_reg,
>> offsetof(struct sk_buff, sk));
>> *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, si->dst_reg, si->dst_reg,
>> bpf_target_off(struct sock_common,
>> skc_dport,
>> 2, target_size));
>> #ifndef __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
>> *insn++ = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_LSH, si->dst_reg, 16);
>> #endif
>
> We can see that it will left move 16-bits in little endian, which makes
> the whole 'remote_port' is in network byte order, and the actual port
> is bpf_ntohl(remote_port).
>
> Note this in the document of 'dst_port'. ( Maybe this should be unified
> in the code? )
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index b0383d371b9a..891a182a749a 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -5500,7 +5500,11 @@ struct bpf_sock {
> __u32 src_ip4;
> __u32 src_ip6[4];
> __u32 src_port; /* host byte order */
> - __u32 dst_port; /* network byte order */
> + __u32 dst_port; /* low 16-bits are in network byte order,
> + * and high 16-bits are filled by 0.
> + * So the real port in host byte order is
> + * bpf_ntohs((__u16)dst_port).
> + */
> __u32 dst_ip4;
> __u32 dst_ip6[4];
> __u32 state;
I'm probably missing something obvious, but is there anything stopping
us from splitting the field, so that dst_ports is 16-bit wide?
I gave a quick check to the change below and it seems to pass verifier
checks and sock_field tests.
IDK, just an idea. Didn't give it a deeper thought.
--8<--
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 4a2f7041ebae..344d62ccafba 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -5574,7 +5574,8 @@ struct bpf_sock {
__u32 src_ip4;
__u32 src_ip6[4];
__u32 src_port; /* host byte order */
- __u32 dst_port; /* network byte order */
+ __u16 unused;
+ __u16 dst_port; /* network byte order */
__u32 dst_ip4;
__u32 dst_ip6[4];
__u32 state;
diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index a06931c27eeb..c56b8ba82de5 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -8276,7 +8276,6 @@ bool bpf_sock_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, family):
case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, type):
case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, protocol):
- case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port):
case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, src_port):
case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, rx_queue_mapping):
case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_sock, src_ip4):
@@ -8285,6 +8284,9 @@ bool bpf_sock_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
case bpf_ctx_range_till(struct bpf_sock, dst_ip6[0], dst_ip6[3]):
bpf_ctx_record_field_size(info, size_default);
return bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok(off, size, size_default);
+ case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port):
+ bpf_ctx_record_field_size(info, sizeof(__u16));
+ return bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok(off, size, sizeof(__u16));
}
return size == size_default;
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 4a2f7041ebae..344d62ccafba 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -5574,7 +5574,8 @@ struct bpf_sock {
__u32 src_ip4;
__u32 src_ip6[4];
__u32 src_port; /* host byte order */
- __u32 dst_port; /* network byte order */
+ __u16 unused;
+ __u16 dst_port; /* network byte order */
__u32 dst_ip4;
__u32 dst_ip6[4];
__u32 state;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-25 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-13 7:02 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add document for 'dst_port' of 'struct bpf_sock' menglong8.dong
2022-01-13 18:55 ` Song Liu
2022-01-19 22:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-01-20 3:02 ` Menglong Dong
2022-01-20 4:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-01-20 14:14 ` Menglong Dong
2022-01-21 5:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-01-25 0:35 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-01-25 1:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-01-25 1:16 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-01-25 3:09 ` Menglong Dong
2022-01-25 19:24 ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2022-01-25 22:45 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-01-25 23:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-01-25 23:53 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-01-27 17:31 ` Jakub Sitnicki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87sftbobys.fsf@cloudflare.com \
--to=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=flyingpeng@tencent.com \
--cc=imagedong@tencent.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mengensun@tencent.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=mungerjiang@tencent.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).