From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-124.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-124.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.124]) (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 41B802EE272; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758182638; cv=none; b=KY2zEwTN0S2Qy0gVmfFouB1FrYSOlSRc12xarHSC4IRSxBUHtxUkkwAV0JP/kKQTu+ohQIuws5OFrAFUw+vacnxXM5vIk1RmsvduMil1Ud2ckQOI2AoVEA+PKjAbXfMv94b+idRCjKiRXQATEJ2lsHm97QqFyjjziKgmmfO2hfQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758182638; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YQZTH7tPL5tZOiDigTtIiUXnn7Zl/OqHBVf/WRWvy6E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=rBrPJPDGbMb5vAxvtrOoAhbIzGHjWqJ5gE5ENKuMM5YMnAQO2ePDPajOPD8m1aKhenuFLvEqge+KL4AAxc9m+1SEn2JuIVW5sWcvYE9O03dJM3UF3TOe8UdhiiH4mhlW4PegUnSJPbxdS5RntdlAfBVRbto3EJTdEHAW+rF9vno= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=XPy0yXI+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="XPy0yXI+" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1758182627; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; bh=o8zVttKRsDZXMwAMsefgpttoLLuOJgFi3OBVDXrLxLA=; b=XPy0yXI+VKFx1rEAnVYam6AopG2UyZ/bVTc5JPYb6zo3NAaVH971WOqnttHLq5eflayqZm8GI37RscD0H+ktVP8ZnWO5WMIPigESe8fwCdcfBSxF2rvAKmpqhBKdEX3WwkSfpoE+QnPoQJz3l3o7jq+llAuVdEC/wKNpfQqIw5A= Received: from j66a10360.sqa.eu95.tbsite.net(mailfrom:alibuda@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WoFEU0W_1758182622 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 16:03:45 +0800 From: "D. Wythe" To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, pabeni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, yhs@fb.com, edumazet@google.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, mjambigi@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, wintera@linux.ibm.com, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com, guwen@linux.alibaba.com Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sidraya@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] net/smc: Introduce smc_hs_ctrl Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 16:03:37 +0800 Message-ID: <20250918080342.25041-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.45.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This patch aims to introduce BPF injection capabilities for SMC and includes a self-test to ensure code stability. Since the SMC protocol isn't ideal for every situation, especially short-lived ones, most applications can't guarantee the absence of such scenarios. Consequently, applications may need specific strategies to decide whether to use SMC. For example, an application might limit SMC usage to certain IP addresses or ports. To maintain the principle of transparent replacement, we want applications to remain unaffected even if they need specific SMC strategies. In other words, they should not require recompilation of their code. Additionally, we need to ensure the scalability of strategy implementation. While using socket options or sysctl might be straightforward, it could complicate future expansions. Fortunately, BPF addresses these concerns effectively. Users can write their own strategies in eBPF to determine whether to use SMC, and they can easily modify those strategies in the future. This is a rework of the series from [1]. Changes since [1] are limited to the SMC parts: 1. Rename smc_ops to smc_hs_ctrl and change interface name. 2. Squash SMC patches, removing standalone non-BPF hook capability. 3. Fix typos [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250123015942.94810-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com/#t v2 -> v1: - Removed the fixes patch, which have already been merged on current branch. - Fixed compilation warning of smc_call_hsbpf() when CONFIG_SMC_HS_CTRL_BPF is not enabled. - Changed the default value of CONFIG_SMC_HS_CTRL_BPF to Y. - Fix typo and renamed some variables D. Wythe (4): bpf: export necessary symbols for modules with struct_ops net/smc: bpf: Introduce generic hook for handshake flow libbpf: fix error when st-prefix_ops and ops from differ btf bpf/selftests: add selftest for bpf_smc_hs_ctrl include/net/netns/smc.h | 3 + include/net/smc.h | 53 +++ kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 2 + kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 1 + net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 36 +- net/smc/Kconfig | 10 + net/smc/Makefile | 1 + net/smc/af_smc.c | 10 + net/smc/smc_hs_bpf.c | 137 ++++++ net/smc/smc_hs_bpf.h | 31 ++ net/smc/smc_sysctl.c | 91 ++++ tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 37 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config | 4 + .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c | 396 ++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c | 117 ++++++ 15 files changed, 896 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_hs_bpf.c create mode 100644 net/smc/smc_hs_bpf.h create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_bpf_smc.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c -- 2.45.0