Re: [PATCH bpf 3/3] xsk: Try to make xdp_umem_reg extension a bit more future-proof

[Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 06:52:53PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> Add a couple of things:
> 1. Remove xdp_umem_reg_v2 since its sizeof is the same as xdp_umem_reg

So thing here is that adding __attribute__((packed)) on kernel side
wouldn't help because we wouldn't fix old uapi with this, correct? old
uapi would still yield 32 bytes for xdp_umem_reg without tx_metadata_len.

Just explaining here to myself.

> 2. Add BUILD_BUG_ON that checks that the size of xdp_umem_reg_v1 is less
>    than xdp_umem_reg; presumably, when we get to v2, there is gonna
>    be a similar line to enforce that sizeof(v2) > sizeof(v1)
> 3. Add BUILD_BUG_ON to make sure the last field plus its size matches
>    the overall struct size. The intent is to demonstrate that we don't
>    have any lingering padding.

This is good stuff but I wonder wouldn't it be more feasible to squash
this with 1/3 ? And have it backported. Regarding the patch logistics, you
did not provide fixes tag here for some reason, but still include the
patch routed via bpf tree.

> 
> Reported-by: Julian Schindel <mail@arctic-alpaca.de>
> Cc: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
> ---
>  net/xdp/xsk.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> index 7d1c0986f9bb..1d951d7e3797 100644
> --- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
> +++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
> @@ -1331,14 +1331,6 @@ struct xdp_umem_reg_v1 {
>  	__u32 headroom;
>  };
>  
> -struct xdp_umem_reg_v2 {
> -	__u64 addr; /* Start of packet data area */
> -	__u64 len; /* Length of packet data area */
> -	__u32 chunk_size;
> -	__u32 headroom;
> -	__u32 flags;
> -};
> -
>  static int xsk_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>  			  sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen)
>  {
> @@ -1382,10 +1374,19 @@ static int xsk_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
>  
>  		if (optlen < sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1))
>  			return -EINVAL;
> -		else if (optlen < sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v2))
> -			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1);
>  		else if (optlen < sizeof(mr))
> -			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v2);
> +			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1);
> +
> +		BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1) >= sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg));
> +
> +		/* Make sure the last field of the struct doesn't have
> +		 * uninitialized padding. All padding has to be explicit
> +		 * and has to be set to zero by the userspace to make
> +		 * struct xdp_umem_reg extensible in the future.
> +		 */
> +		BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct xdp_umem_reg, tx_metadata_len) +
> +			     sizeof_field(struct xdp_umem_reg, tx_metadata_len) !=
> +			     sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg));
>  
>  		if (copy_from_sockptr(&mr, optval, mr_size))
>  			return -EFAULT;
> -- 
> 2.45.2
> 
>