Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/9] sock: introduce sk_prot->update_proto()

From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>,
	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>,
	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: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:53:31 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpV5vJn5ORbhodinEYP7vV9tGbXwDN2Nw+TLqUNnp5ENcg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6042e114a1c9e_135da20839@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:55 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:27 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > "extra"? restore_proto should only be called when the psock ref count
> > > is zero and we need to transition back to the original socks proto
> > > handlers. To trigger this we can simply delete a sock from the map.
> > > In the case where we are deleting the psock overwriting the tcp_bpf
> > > protos is exactly what we want.?
> >
> > Why do you want to overwrite tcp_bpf_prots->unhash? Overwriting
> > tcp_bpf_prots is correct, but overwriting tcp_bpf_prots->unhash is not.
> > Because once you overwrite it, the next time you use it to replace
> > sk->sk_prot, it would be a different one rather than sock_map_unhash():
> >
> > // tcp_bpf_prots->unhash == sock_map_unhash
> > sk_psock_restore_proto();
> > // Now  tcp_bpf_prots->unhash is inet_unhash
> > ...
> > sk_psock_update_proto();
> > // sk->sk_proto is now tcp_bpf_prots again,
> > // so its ->unhash now is inet_unhash
> > // but it should be sock_map_unhash here
>
> Right, we can fix this on the TLS side. I'll push a fix shortly.

Are you still working on this? If kTLS still needs it, then we can
have something like this:

diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
index 8edbbf5f2f93..5eb617df7f48 100644
--- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
+++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
@@ -349,8 +349,8 @@ static inline void sk_psock_update_proto(struct sock *sk,
 static inline void sk_psock_restore_proto(struct sock *sk,
                                          struct sk_psock *psock)
 {
-       sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
        if (inet_csk_has_ulp(sk)) {
+               sk->sk_prot->unhash = psock->saved_unhash;
                tcp_update_ulp(sk, psock->sk_proto, psock->saved_write_space);
        } else {
                sk->sk_write_space = psock->saved_write_space;


Thanks.
