Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bpf: xdp: Allow head adjustment in XDP prog

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 12/03/2016 08:32 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:24:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:23:30 -0800
>> Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -bool bpf_helper_changes_skb_data(void *func)
>>> +BPF_CALL_2(bpf_xdp_adjust_head, struct xdp_buff *, xdp, int, offset)
>>> +{
>>> +	/* Both mlx4 and mlx5 driver align each packet to PAGE_SIZE when
>>> +	 * XDP prog is set.
>>> +	 * If the above is not true for the other drivers to support
>>> +	 * bpf_xdp_adjust_head, struct xdp_buff can be extended.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	void *head = (void *)((unsigned long)xdp->data & PAGE_MASK);
>>> +	void *new_data = xdp->data + offset;
>>> +
>>> +	if (new_data < head || new_data >= xdp->data_end)
>>> +		/* The packet length must be >=1 */
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +	xdp->data = new_data;
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> First time I read this code, I was about to complain about you didn't
>> use XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM in your boundary check.  But then I noticed the
>> PAGE_MASK.  If you rename "head" to "page_boundary" or "page_start"
>> then IMHO the code would be more readable.
> bpf_xdp_adjust_head() could be called multiple times.  Hence,
> XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM is not used in the boundary check.
>
> My thinking is "head" here can closely resemble the meaning of
> skb->head as a boundary.  I think missing the info on
> what head it is could be the confusing part.
>
> Instead of skb boundary (there is no skb here) or
> page boundary (other future XDP driver may not align like mlx4/5),
> I think may be "pkt_head" can give more clarity here and also
> for furture XDP-capble driver?

I think as-is with head is also fine with me, but if it should be
something better readable (?), perhaps as such (modulo the min len
part):

BPF_CALL_2(bpf_xdp_adjust_head, struct xdp_buff *, xdp, int, offset)
{
	unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)xdp->data & PAGE_MASK;
	void *data_hard_start = (void *)addr;
	void *data = xdp->data + offset;

	if (unlikely(data < data_hard_start || data >= xdp->data_end))
		return -EINVAL;

	xdp->data = data;
	return 0;
}

Thanks,
Daniel