From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [bpf PATCH 1/3] net: add a UID to use for ULP socket assignment Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:21:55 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20180126002001.23004.45946.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810> <20180126002701.23004.70470.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810> <20180126155216.GA10323@davejwatson-mba> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp To: Dave Watson Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:39503 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751776AbeAZQWL (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:22:11 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id e11so561049pff.6 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:22:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180126155216.GA10323@davejwatson-mba> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/26/2018 07:52 AM, Dave Watson wrote: > On 01/25/18 04:27 PM, John Fastabend wrote: >> I did not however retest TLS with the small change to ULP layer. >> Mostly because I don't have a TLS setup. I plan/hope to get around >> to writing either a sample or preferably a selftest for this case >> as well (assuming I didn't miss one). > >> @Dave Watson can you take a quick look to verify the changes are >> good on TLS ULP side. > > Looks reasonable, and passes my test suite. One comment below > > Tested-by: Dave Watson > >> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend >> --- >> include/net/tcp.h | 6 ++++++ >> net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> net/tls/tls_main.c | 2 ++ >> 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c >> index 6bb9e14..8ef437d 100644 >> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c >> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ulp.c >> @@ -133,3 +157,22 @@ int tcp_set_ulp(struct sock *sk, const char *name) >> icsk->icsk_ulp_ops = ulp_ops; >> return 0; >> } >> + >> +int tcp_set_ulp_id(struct sock *sk, int ulp) >> +{ >> + struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk); >> + const struct tcp_ulp_ops *ulp_ops; >> + int err; >> + >> + if (icsk->icsk_ulp_ops) >> + return -EEXIST; >> + >> + ulp_ops = __tcp_ulp_lookup(ulp); >> + if (!ulp_ops) >> + return -ENOENT; >> + >> + err = ulp_ops->init(sk); >> + if (!err) >> + icsk->icsk_ulp_ops = ulp_ops; > > Does this need module_put on error, similar to tcp_set_ulp? Not needed in current use because its only being used with an in-kernel ULP. However, best to fix it so that we don't have a (hard to detect) bug first time someone uses this with a module ULP. Thanks I'll spin a v2 this morning. > >> + return err; >> +}