From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm slots per program
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:39:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rs66xv3.fsf@cloudflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKH8qBuqPQjZ==CjD=rO8dui9LNcUNRFOg7ROETRxbuMYnzBEg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:44 AM -07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:10 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
[...]
>> [^1] It looks like we can easily switch from cgroup->bpf.progs[] from
>> list_head to hlist_head and save some bytes!
>>
>> We only access the list tail in __cgroup_bpf_attach(). We can
>> either iterate over the list and eat the cost there or push the new
>> prog onto the front.
>>
>> I think we treat cgroup->bpf.progs[] everywhere like an unordered
>> set. Except for __cgroup_bpf_query, where the user might notice the
>> order change in the BPF_PROG_QUERY dump.
>
>
> [...]
>
>> [^2] Unrelated, but we would like to propose a
>> CGROUP_INET[46]_POST_CONNECT hook in the near future to make it
>> easier to bind UDP sockets to 4-tuple without creating conflicts:
>>
>> https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflare-blog/tree/master/2022-02-connectx/ebpf_connect4
>
> Do you think those new lsm hooks can be used instead? If not, what's missing?
Same as for CGROUP_INET hooks, there is no post-connect() LSM hook.
Why are we looking for a post-connect hook?
Having a pre- and a post- connect hook, would allow us to turn the whole
connect() syscall into a critical section with synchronization done in
BPF - lock on pre-connect, unlock on post-connect.
Why do we want to serialize connect() calls?
To check for 4-tuple conflict with an existing unicast UDP socket, in
which case we want fail connect() if there is a conflict.
That said, ideally we would rather have a mechanism like
IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT, but for UDP, and one that allows selecting both
an local IP and port.
We're hoping to put together an RFC sometime this quarter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-15 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-07 22:31 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/7] bpf: cgroup_sock lsm flavor Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/7] bpf: add bpf_func_t and trampoline helpers Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/7] bpf: per-cgroup lsm flavor Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-08 14:20 ` kernel test robot
2022-04-08 15:53 ` kernel test robot
2022-04-08 16:42 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-08 22:12 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-11 19:07 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 1:04 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 16:42 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-11 8:26 ` Dan Carpenter
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm slots per program Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-08 22:56 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-09 17:04 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2022-04-11 18:44 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-15 17:39 ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2022-04-15 18:46 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 1:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 16:42 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 17:40 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-11 18:46 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 1:36 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 16:42 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 18:13 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 19:01 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 20:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 20:36 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-12 22:13 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-04-12 22:42 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/7] bpf: allow writing to a subset of sock fields from lsm progtype Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] libbpf: add lsm_cgoup_sock type Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/7] selftests/bpf: lsm_cgroup functional test Stanislav Fomichev
2022-04-07 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/7] selftests/bpf: verify lsm_cgroup struct sock access Stanislav Fomichev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878rs66xv3.fsf@cloudflare.com \
--to=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).