From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9082EAB6F for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 05:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785562569; cv=none; b=FTadk0b7vnmGr3AMvym7tpLb5zt6q2vdLiUtLgS+KYU4kvzf1DYCC0vbOrsyhlIUgIxh0ZrwwsiRTwI2NZCV0kIypcKdmQ668/fiYsDfQVsB5DdnuLu0/EilkBrDAiI8yKWBO3La+4EgtMu05cn1JVOPazHEn44RRQwH15MNsvA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785562569; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iGa5q2DY3IgnWeLGtaTBNECpkf+/qwVvLBItC8bNAnA=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=roQrVZBfabqOhtzH2troKxRDL0CmIHyN/qgO7NSxgQ75tMUgEvrLrbDvk0vh/2rdkSALyVCscmdMVoL40rs/cz6hkEyZxYjNz9LmWOygCbgCiB1/2rpGccsi1VKC2l3KPOBG4dEaDaHTH3okLCDqG6yzuW2PM9mwJOGZtHs7QEc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TrNEHM0W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TrNEHM0W" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71C201F00AC4; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 05:36:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785562567; bh=B1CbNG378RzIsRSb5eIiV+R1axwejY4ys5aIEIgXRo4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=TrNEHM0Wom4YK/s4NykKDYYJagPUiZyzyWO0BTTmwiYtmfxO2Z+SWLUwkANjCNG6R 0alXmVAx8dzVifgtzqO0KyaOXDblxUGZBJLh/O2kxDvQzbhxvZ6OoQZ/V7V3DuwSpI 3Ue98R9Z+iBbXf618K3/+k9dkav58rXLJ+hLvYSWLxC2050hFZeHhs8I8K2o1Ovppp XznehRX3H2TJ2fsM/vi5d5nCmuneDxe15p3e37jVIB9qWB2JIe9/CBOGIkA4CuvBa+ v+K9ZPuLALpnSGtU0vCivohuRrmNgxS8gGv14fZ8gLs+UkvevE14nOI0wYFU6Og3ZL W/2RTaTVHaTgw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Allow IP_TRANSPARENT and IPV6_TRANSPARENT in bpf_{set,get}sockopt() Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Shivaji Kant" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260801051307.478469-1-shivajikant@google.com> References: <20260801051307.478469-1-shivajikant@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 05:36:07 +0000 Message-Id: <20260801053607.71C201F00AC4@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] bpf_setsockopt() bypasses MPTCP subflow synchronization for IP_T= RANSPARENT and IPV6_TRANSPARENT. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Allow IP_TRANSPARENT and IPV6_T= RANSPARENT in bpf_{set,get}sockopt() --- commit c5ad31eb12f337883443730bb1839d63112c725e Author: Shivaji Kant bpf: Allow IP_TRANSPARENT and IPV6_TRANSPARENT in bpf_{set,get}sockopt() This commit allows IP_TRANSPARENT and IPV6_TRANSPARENT socket options to be used with bpf_setsockopt() and bpf_getsockopt(). > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > index c21c1daecf9d1..04a9f9d8d07b4 100644 > --- a/net/core/filter.c > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > @@ -5645,6 +5645,7 @@ static int sol_ip_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int optn= ame, > =20 > switch (optname) { > case IP_TOS: > + case IP_TRANSPARENT: > if (*optlen !=3D sizeof(int)) > return -EINVAL; > break; [Severity: Medium] Does bypassing the protocol-specific sk->sk_prot->setsockopt() handler here break MPTCP subflow synchronization? Since sol_ip_sockopt() calls do_ip_setsockopt(sk) directly, it appears that IP_TRANSPARENT settings applied via bpf_setsockopt() will not be synchroniz= ed to existing MPTCP subflows. Could this cause the underlying subflows to lack the transparent attribute after they are instantiated? [ ... ] > @@ -5671,6 +5672,7 @@ static int sol_ipv6_sockopt(struct sock *sk, int op= tname, > switch (optname) { > case IPV6_TCLASS: > case IPV6_AUTOFLOWLABEL: > + case IPV6_TRANSPARENT: > if (*optlen !=3D sizeof(int)) > return -EINVAL; > break; [Severity: Medium] Will this introduce the same synchronization issue for IPV6_TRANSPARENT on = IPv6 MPTCP sockets? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260801051307.4784= 69-1-shivajikant@google.com?part=3D1