bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Cc: Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	duanxiongchun@bytedance.com,
	Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@bytedance.com>,
	Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@bytedance.com>,
	Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update_proto()
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:52:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXXUv1FV8DQ85a2fs08JCfKHHt-fAWYbV0TTWmwUZ-K5Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXqE9qJ=+zKA6H1Rq=KKgm8LZ=p=ZtvrrH+hfSrTg+zxw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:23 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:22 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 02:37, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > >  static inline void sk_psock_restore_proto(struct sock *sk,
> > >                                           struct sk_psock *psock)
> > >  {
> > >         sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
> >
> > Not related to your patch set, but why do an extra restore of
> > sk_prot->unhash here? At this point sk->sk_prot is one of our tcp_bpf
> > / udp_bpf protos, so overwriting that seems wrong?
>
> Good catch. It seems you are right, but I need a double check. And
> yes, it is completely unrelated to my patch, as the current code has
> the same problem.

Looking at this again. I noticed

commit 4da6a196f93b1af7612340e8c1ad8ce71e18f955
Author: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat Jan 11 06:11:59 2020 +0000

    bpf: Sockmap/tls, during free we may call tcp_bpf_unhash() in loop

intentionally fixed a bug in kTLS with overwriting this ->unhash.

I agree with you that it should not be updated for sockmap case,
however I don't know what to do with kTLS case, it seems the bug the
above commit fixed still exists if we just revert it.

Anyway, this should be targeted for -bpf as a bug fix, so it does not
belong to this patchset.

Thanks.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-03-04 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-02  2:37 [Patch bpf-next v2 0/9] sockmap: introduce BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT and support UDP Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 1/9] sock_map: introduce BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update_proto() Cong Wang
2021-03-02 16:22   ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-02 18:23     ` Cong Wang
2021-03-03  9:35       ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-03 18:20         ` Cong Wang
2021-03-04  9:30           ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-04 23:52       ` Cong Wang [this message]
2021-03-06  0:27         ` John Fastabend
2021-03-06  0:57           ` Cong Wang
2021-03-06  1:55             ` John Fastabend
2021-03-09 17:53               ` Cong Wang
2021-03-10  6:33                 ` John Fastabend
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 3/9] udp: implement ->sendmsg_locked() Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 4/9] udp: implement ->read_sock() for sockmap Cong Wang
2021-03-03  6:26   ` Yonghong Song
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 5/9] udp: add ->read_sock() and ->sendmsg_locked() to ipv6 Cong Wang
2021-03-02 16:23   ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-02 17:59     ` Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 6/9] skmsg: extract __tcp_bpf_recvmsg() and tcp_bpf_wait_data() Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 7/9] udp: implement udp_bpf_recvmsg() for sockmap Cong Wang
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 8/9] sock_map: update sock type checks for UDP Cong Wang
2021-03-03  6:37   ` Yonghong Song
2021-03-03 18:02     ` Cong Wang
2021-03-03 18:50       ` Yonghong Song
2021-03-02  2:37 ` [Patch bpf-next v2 9/9] selftests/bpf: add a test case for udp sockmap Cong Wang
2021-03-02 16:31   ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-02 18:05     ` Cong Wang
2021-03-03 10:20       ` Lorenz Bauer

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=CAM_iQpXXUv1FV8DQ85a2fs08JCfKHHt-fAWYbV0TTWmwUZ-K5Q@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=duanxiongchun@bytedance.com \
    --cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=jiang.wang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wangdongdong.6@bytedance.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).