From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9699C04A68 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243228AbiG0RsW (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:48:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46602 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242917AbiG0RsC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:48:02 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1049.google.com (mail-pj1-x1049.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1049]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBBF03A8 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1049.google.com with SMTP id r6-20020a17090a2e8600b001f0768a1af1so1430868pjd.8 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=2CRPI+9B3V6PxOsWHdjhEKBdLq4aHTliZQPLRtQXvnU=; b=F+dZ5aG2bt1j0rX9VJoHZ1sv/WepC7YncxGNF4HsW545W0YVHkZY+M4WuZOrSoVuck x69yEaUzQeEdzg3Mwin/F8auXg/VsXWk15iMPTcxeAd5sVx1jZkh9LVKA1OCCLZpLmRf gT+IKi+4mkAP3wwzeyF6CrlBx7mbLl+OPrQrOSp0fm/T8J+yo6vMvNHYA1RdAYCuzlYO 1dcNKyrgGXrojORouocXCrCd+yjmd3PbrXMGKWMnH2Gf/rWX5tOQTWyub7y9Tw1Q0NtR 49Mt793gtVgmR31Jx8Gmafa9XEqD8A8z6xV4X9eJWYHx4wkI6/4Cb2oMCzWyNcKBNsAK WoOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=2CRPI+9B3V6PxOsWHdjhEKBdLq4aHTliZQPLRtQXvnU=; b=MtvXVUFG86tTkgqMvt8VnKJAmqXjW7aj1BGkFcVDXjYK+2RZBpLytlLtsRG7Z8I8DQ q1df07oNTwbo6TV435pp/XvoeDW6vSjCBfXZNgI+nnTTG+4yf1g/EmlPfzZ3aQnYR6gb UgXAb0HqAvszpXBSyiOBHHG3F0MwOowa8K0/04kefGlNeZJTjjA/fBCCtsT/JkPwyHsc dgt/WqYK4b7RD8zIIhBvMubftGVQQEYVSOACe10S7n6CTm+pvTEXHrPcibu69HgRq7uJ WbYvjzVq8vQ6rjh0/+m5Ccv2/227hLAtWT31r/IdP0W4Nj+yyw/hxjjt1tYZBYc5jJW4 pFfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+MMVxTD3TIAK33/meWEF7yWROulKCVINxW75mTteaWmnUvCd/U WEr0Ta19Ea81X9LezF5Mibrt1fo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1swDkPVt7A/yr3RRBPIei63v6wBmzkZF9AcEUS3MDLZQg6wlOcyNEXP2T7bZHqRmsTiCfDHLVE= X-Received: from sdf.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:5935]) (user=sdf job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:90b:10e:b0:1f1:f3b0:9304 with SMTP id p14-20020a17090b010e00b001f1f3b09304mr574547pjz.1.1658940850393; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:54:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20220727060915.2372520-1-kafai@fb.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20220727060856.2370358-1-kafai@fb.com> <20220727060915.2372520-1-kafai@fb.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/14] bpf: net: Consider optval.is_bpf before capable check in sock_setsockopt() From: sdf@google.com To: Martin KaFai Lau Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , David Miller , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , kernel-team@fb.com, Paolo Abeni Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 07/26, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > When bpf program calling bpf_setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET), > it could be run in softirq and doesn't make sense to do the capable > check. There was a similar situation in bpf_setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION). Should we instead skip these capability checks based on something like in_serving_softirq? I wonder if we might be mixing too much into that is_bpf flag (locking assumptions, context assumptions, etc)?