From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.co.jp>
To: <kafai@fb.com>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <benh@amazon.com>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<davem@davemloft.net>, <edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>,
<kuni1840@gmail.com>, <kuniyu@amazon.co.jp>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 03/11] tcp: Keep TCP_CLOSE sockets in the reuseport group.
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 09:26:39 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210521002639.20533-1-kuniyu@amazon.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210520233906.c7yphwjrstqmhfk6@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 16:39:06 -0700
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 07:54:48AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
> > Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:22:01 -0700
> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 05:51:17PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > > From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
> > > > Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 23:26:48 -0700
> > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 09:22:50AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +static int reuseport_resurrect(struct sock *sk, struct sock_reuseport *old_reuse,
> > > > > > + struct sock_reuseport *reuse, bool bind_inany)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + if (old_reuse == reuse) {
> > > > > > + /* If sk was in the same reuseport group, just pop sk out of
> > > > > > + * the closed section and push sk into the listening section.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + __reuseport_detach_closed_sock(sk, old_reuse);
> > > > > > + __reuseport_add_sock(sk, old_reuse);
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!reuse) {
> > > > > > + /* In bind()/listen() path, we cannot carry over the eBPF prog
> > > > > > + * for the shutdown()ed socket. In setsockopt() path, we should
> > > > > > + * not change the eBPF prog of listening sockets by attaching a
> > > > > > + * prog to the shutdown()ed socket. Thus, we will allocate a new
> > > > > > + * reuseport group and detach sk from the old group.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > For the reuseport_attach_prog() path, I think it needs to consider
> > > > > the reuse->num_closed_socks != 0 case also and that should belong
> > > > > to the resurrect case. For example, when
> > > > > sk_unhashed(sk) but sk->sk_reuseport == 0.
> > > >
> > > > In the path, reuseport_resurrect() is called from reuseport_alloc() only
> > > > if reuse->num_closed_socks != 0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -92,6 +117,14 @@ int reuseport_alloc(struct sock *sk, bool bind_inany)
> > > > > reuse = rcu_dereference_protected(sk->sk_reuseport_cb,
> > > > > lockdep_is_held(&reuseport_lock));
> > > > > if (reuse) {
> > > > > + if (reuse->num_closed_socks) {
> > > >
> > > > But, should this be
> > > >
> > > > if (sk->sk_state == TCP_CLOSE && reuse->num_closed_socks)
> > > >
> > > > because we need not allocate a new group when we attach a bpf prog to
> > > > listeners?
> > > The reuseport_alloc() is fine as is. No need to change.
> >
> > I missed sk_unhashed(sk) prevents calling reuseport_alloc()
> > if sk_state == TCP_LISTEN. I'll keep it as is.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I should have copied reuseport_attach_prog() in the last reply and
> > > commented there instead.
> > >
> > > I meant reuseport_attach_prog() needs a change. In reuseport_attach_prog(),
> > > iiuc, currently passing the "else if (!rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb))"
> > > check implies the sk was (and still is) hashed with sk_reuseport enabled
> > > because the current behavior would have set sk_reuseport_cb to NULL during
> > > unhash but it is no longer true now. For example, this will break:
> > >
> > > 1. shutdown(lsk); /* lsk was bound with sk_reuseport enabled */
> > > 2. setsockopt(lsk, ..., SO_REUSEPORT, &zero, ...); /* disable sk_reuseport */
> > > 3. setsockopt(lsk, ..., SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_EBPF, &prog_fd, ...);
> > > ^---- /* This will work now because sk_reuseport_cb is not NULL.
> > > * However, it shouldn't be allowed.
> > > */
> >
> > Thank you for explanation, I understood the case.
> >
> > Exactly, I've confirmed that the case succeeded in the setsockopt() and I
> > could change the active listeners' prog via a shutdowned socket.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am thinking something like this (uncompiled code):
> > >
> > > int reuseport_attach_prog(struct sock *sk, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > > {
> > > struct sock_reuseport *reuse;
> > > struct bpf_prog *old_prog;
> > >
> > > if (sk_unhashed(sk)) {
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > if (!sk->sk_reuseport)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > err = reuseport_alloc(sk, false);
> > > if (err)
> > > return err;
> > > } else if (!rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb)) {
> > > /* The socket wasn't bound with SO_REUSEPORT */
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* ... */
> > > }
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > I tested this change worked fine. I think this change should be added in
> > reuseport_detach_prog() also.
> >
> > ---8<---
> > int reuseport_detach_prog(struct sock *sk)
> > {
> > struct sock_reuseport *reuse;
> > struct bpf_prog *old_prog;
> >
> > if (!rcu_access_pointer(sk->sk_reuseport_cb))
> > return sk->sk_reuseport ? -ENOENT : -EINVAL;
> > ---8<---
> Right, a quick thought is something like this for detach:
>
> spin_lock_bh(&reuseport_lock);
> reuse = rcu_dereference_protected(sk->sk_reuseport_cb,
> lockdep_is_held(&reuseport_lock));
Is this necessary because reuseport_grow() can detach sk?
if (!reuse) {
spin_unlock_bh(&reuseport_lock);
return -ENOENT;
}
Then we can remove rcu_access_pointer() check and move sk_reuseport check
here.
> if (sk_unhashed(sk) && reuse->num_closed_socks) {
> spin_unlock_bh(&reuseport_lock);
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> Although checking with reuseport_sock_index() will also work,
> the above probably is simpler and faster?
Yes, if sk is unhashed and has sk_reuseport_cb, it stays in the closed
section of socks[] and num_closed_socks is larger than 0.
>
> >
> >
> > Another option is to add the check in sock_setsockopt():
> > SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_[CE]BPF, SO_DETACH_REUSEPORT_BPF.
> >
> > Which do you think is better ?
> I think it is better to have this sock_reuseport specific bits
> staying in sock_reuseport.c.
Exactly, I'll keep the change in sock_reuseport.c
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-21 0:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-17 0:22 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 00/11] Socket migration for SO_REUSEPORT Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/11] net: Introduce net.ipv4.tcp_migrate_req Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 02/11] tcp: Add num_closed_socks to struct sock_reuseport Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 03/11] tcp: Keep TCP_CLOSE sockets in the reuseport group Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-20 6:26 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-20 8:51 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-20 21:22 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-20 22:54 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-20 23:39 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-21 0:26 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima [this message]
2021-05-21 4:47 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-21 5:15 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 04/11] tcp: Add reuseport_migrate_sock() to select a new listener Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 05/11] tcp: Migrate TCP_ESTABLISHED/TCP_SYN_RECV sockets in accept queues Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 06/11] tcp: Migrate TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV requests at retransmitting SYN+ACKs Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 07/11] tcp: Migrate TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV requests at receiving the final ACK Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 08/11] bpf: Support BPF_FUNC_get_socket_cookie() for BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_REUSEPORT Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 09/11] bpf: Support socket migration by eBPF Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-20 6:27 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-20 8:54 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 10/11] libbpf: Set expected_attach_type for BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_REUSEPORT Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-17 0:22 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 11/11] bpf: Test BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_SELECT_OR_MIGRATE Kuniyuki Iwashima
2021-05-20 6:30 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 00/11] Socket migration for SO_REUSEPORT Martin KaFai Lau
2021-05-20 8:58 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
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=20210521002639.20533-1-kuniyu@amazon.co.jp \
--to=kuniyu@amazon.co.jp \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=benh@amazon.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuni1840@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).