From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3488CC4338F for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107176109E for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 21:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234824AbhHMVXe (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:23:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47990 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234716AbhHMVXd (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:23:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x74a.google.com (mail-qk1-x74a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::74a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 393DEC0617AD for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x74a.google.com with SMTP id b4-20020a3799040000b02903b899a4309cso8279029qke.14 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:23:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=O+a+kJqxjsCgYqIdwgvSL+Ilv4hJngYXbJtEdzYwooo=; b=TTEK0RsM0JDQzLJzTTKgdUZ1jeQNd6jO75zKxOU8a8zbe5n8WmbMyrhc9HDAyjpcEA xUWHjMiUoEGprRniwj2eZm29N7S47LSxajYvw5aRs5leok81CT6EbTzRoM9vB9WrK3Xu OrHhiqL+3TzpX++Bd4qzr054j6Ta/n0Fpmh/H3Xm2h041up4xo2pqioaaBoytzee0U6D QkKnyYhek5UitBG66xSSkeuQx7Ew7lemNTw1nzfveoYAIq8KIok1nQjXzHLBUstzL5gU BB+RV1J9OIJ0dOUMem1HZQLdT/WdDtTSRh7z5gJDWmqvxFfBISa5sroz6FswMcUuuJIu 1XUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=O+a+kJqxjsCgYqIdwgvSL+Ilv4hJngYXbJtEdzYwooo=; b=mT65yq+Cq8Op37N28BFkHUr8F/kMdPk1t+NLeug2h/9vmT4LxU99dZmHj30US4Xb0L 4eK/J17sKo0jhRc0gmXLnWLesac187f2PAJYl2oY/mQKKaNyzgopvYe5fYKkbkrmD+K/ Yu1RF7fDeNRvVhWihPF0qipIC6ro62cSRLr0JiW0j1Aohl3lMPDfCEbog38kQ385JubX RXgcAlhc/x6F/SCZqtmsvNveQWlu+xdIXqflj723uPemUGIMt6x5XrXpclubMIXbW8VL H0v4l4YlCJlBgzydDeLEpcVY9FCkYiGcN34LR2akX1IqyfICuryUw8C8tZB57GHf/tg5 eqWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kLzyikYKVVYmlxV5/K4F3xSpdcLyMkJ78zAKO2Bp2fAfP7GQB W1pxolgmyrXgU8yO3deEX6GrZWY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzaBi3DhigOdVcaLGyPU08xbaff8xdPewdHsDYx0sxO6SOeJkpVzOE8JZtHc9VrLl+L6SQymuU= X-Received: from sdf2.svl.corp.google.com ([2620:15c:2c4:201:f73:a375:cbb9:779b]) (user=sdf job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6214:e62:: with SMTP id jz2mr4654757qvb.54.1628889785281; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:23:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20210813195802.r67s62f5iwvnlmv4@kafai-mbp> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20210812153011.983006-1-sdf@google.com> <20210812153011.983006-2-sdf@google.com> <20210813195802.r67s62f5iwvnlmv4@kafai-mbp> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Allow bpf_get_netns_cookie in BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCKOPT From: sdf@google.com To: Martin KaFai Lau Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 08/13, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 08:30:10AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > This is similar to existing BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK > > and BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev > > --- > > kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c > > index b567ca46555c..ca5af8852260 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c > > @@ -1846,11 +1846,30 @@ const struct bpf_verifier_ops > cg_sysctl_verifier_ops = { > > const struct bpf_prog_ops cg_sysctl_prog_ops = { > > }; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET > > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_netns_cookie_sockopt, struct bpf_sockopt_kern *, > ctx) > > +{ > > + struct sock *sk = ctx ? ctx->sk : NULL; > > + const struct net *net = sk ? sock_net(sk) : &init_net; > A nit. > ctx->sk can not be NULL here, so it only depends on ctx is NULL or not. > If I read it correctly, would it be less convoluted to directly test ctx > and use ctx->sk here, like: > const struct net *net = ctx ? sock_net(ctx->sk) : &init_net; > and the previous "struct sock *sk = ctx ? ctx->sk : NULL;" statement > can also be removed. Agreed, makes sense. Let me also add bpf_get_netns_cookie to some existing BPF prog to make sure it's executed. That ctx.c isn't really running the prog..