On 1/19/18, 7:52 PM, "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:45:42PM -0800, Lawrence Brakmo wrote:
> Adds field bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags to tcp_sock and bpf_sock_ops. Its primary
> use is to determine if there should be calls to sock_ops bpf program at
> various points in the TCP code. The field is initialized to zero,
> disabling the calls. A sock_ops BPF program can set it, per connection and
> as necessary, when the connection is established.
>
> It also adds support for reading and writting the field within a
> sock_ops BPF program. Reading is done by accessing the field directly.
> However, writing is done through the helper function
> bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set, in order to return an error if a BPF program
> is trying to set a callback that is not supported in the current kernel
> (i.e. running an older kernel). The helper function returns 0 if it was
> able to set all of the bits set in the argument, a positive number
> containing the bits that could not be set, or -EINVAL if the socket is
> not a full TCP socket.
...
> +/* Sock_ops bpf program related variables */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF
> + u8 bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags; /* Control calling BPF programs
> + * values defined in uapi/linux/tcp.h
I guess we can extend u8 into u16 or more if necessary in the future.
Yes, that was my thought.
> + * int bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set(bpf_sock_ops, flags)
> + * Set callback flags for sock_ops
> + * @bpf_sock_ops: pointer to bpf_sock_ops_kern struct
> + * @flags: flags value
> + * Return: 0 for no error
> + * -EINVAL if there is no full tcp socket
> + * bits in flags that are not supported by current kernel
...
> +BPF_CALL_2(bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set, struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *,
bpf_sock,
> + int, argval)
> +{
> + struct sock *sk = bpf_sock->sk;
> + int val = argval & BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS;
> +
> + if (!sk_fullsock(sk))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INET
> + if (val)
> + tcp_sk(sk)->bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags = val;
> +
> + return argval & (~BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS);
interesting idea! took me some time to realize the potential
of such semantics, but now I like it a lot.
It blends 'set good flag' with 'which flags are supported' logic
into single helper. Nice.
Thanks for adding a test for both ways.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
Eric, does this approach address your concerns?
