From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3869B38236E for ; Mon, 18 May 2026 17:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779124694; cv=none; b=E1tWhbGrhYeNvZduP4ultkNv3N+Vxpi++nyLYiBv2MQZqI5ZOwd5HCIhptWDuMSKdmwNkVbxJs4hWlx5heKm8/3NVEqNEVFv317wxtsrqtM5dwhmg/IB6U8SgHYrj1a2qxxDKiErFSC6Czik45qt8f5TAZZruOH82yefZjtm028= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779124694; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3c0QS5xzL7i2Q75DhbTuhvaZhPUd9TNapdTzHhuKIbg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=L51DwWWULCmbBPU/FOtGLq6SJWTX2Nz9g+l6J1EokVzSq/sqoU8SM/aRQnHsFjjE9Q74PXwMMe4Sfw27r2KUqCC69VJjOUgt+Iw6AGGT+qsdAVbxc/58TjD1+EOgThHcVLM1sR6u31dIzovOs7/trgp0AwJo1dL/mmZjsKGodRo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=cLdYX1aZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="cLdYX1aZ" Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48ff4f8ef0dso29381225e9.3 for ; Mon, 18 May 2026 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1779124692; x=1779729492; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HEqTTzF0Ghh6Rzlw5gbHSyUg5PTlw2WJ5Y6lPEAeK9k=; b=cLdYX1aZ0ntSFY8Sihinyxg938YGokYZ+iqz+Kt/pJFC3Z2hqsj7RjX4rCYaTDuRl9 a6Sx246jNNF4y2nYq+hJsgXRJrh6yBBssPCJkEqAlnOfAPQjDjg1lZX4k6n57wsruo8a xREnrC3Yjql4t0F7EZdbxEILvkBNCLOjRnsOkYr/5a3nOtpPeoq6qxW5ty6Y+N975fW8 UOryxL4q04xqLXw1nv6yfY2H0jVZe6px8IEAUUZ6WpBhobm/px9S7Y3Q1209e5OFRfHL LoUho/kudMbvukksqusvULxAl2cYTltIssH/VtlbHJlu6s/CwtB+EBnHCDdRI71YXP+3 1YOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779124692; x=1779729492; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HEqTTzF0Ghh6Rzlw5gbHSyUg5PTlw2WJ5Y6lPEAeK9k=; b=nD0ujfY+Ve6Yp0h9Y6WNJ/gWhLTakNAVJWpJbVEE0V5gh+j6bQyUa7BQwoHyxN8Cyh 7XPyjP7ZnMDiKPE71NQKK3xXCcAPwSDgTkZJWp08Bu/IH366hiaQZb2hi78ZMmjfpp37 6rSc9+m5XqACD8hjxYf4AF/Eli0o6ixLmDQW9ZwwXl20vntLLuubNtwtDyRzJFdFkDkI 1EQTWKjYT1vohK9gR7M7r+WxzVLqyjUyCxS6qgyHhPzsHUyXynr7wkHipslHRC58NINn MrfmMZqa0E3knfLh682313oD1uW0MIkLiEse3WKBp4mRUd/kI2GUomSk5FBNCRb8cmGZ LYJQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+2tLvJ8W3DDNebv9B0vMwqbCAGRzDI0w3v3JVCv916mGM/FvUw1G6KouQ48cMSIpfSVocp/rU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzVYXhyrQ2rcO12aHdLAJpnpR00J8Rclu57tMgYok1I3vkeMNBp hJHNHS3SxYUOIuP6M6UH3P8tBXGjeLN7r7pEYnlNX+SHE1knLqd6vD4O X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OGJo64fV7fUE6zOdnHZi8+K38k1IFuEIBcubAjaC4KVoIpIZnagj+DjED+HVaO xsZxQNQAGhkDOJGDkeeVO6CGe417hNIvXDam93uYhCaqyjOWFCpFa6Y8VV2mnzazRWhVlZ734rF bctr0oy2x+oY/TugkjUH6o0k1AcqcdgN94aTFtYZiYRMA0HZqVgHqdxP4jERCadx/YHc6epIFIh IDqjk6PfzbDs60/qsGjKDMYzGgdJnf4qQhpuCufqXWTfC8LyIOkEEWybqhbH24cY5pq7h56DCNN x7f6nsCXrO719LlQfw0HM6ypEK6CkXxhs0k+jshptIiAoJ6asM5d9ANvhPBp2K1idlLXcPn+ZJD 3o1Uu4hBAakfDR9ehNmwj/vUCX2ZpWApU9CWqTYLIkUFDUBIqEBC22UhxzdzC/wYd/b01LkxZPJ 1u9xo2f2vw4FMJLcFqqn5h5QePOWI3geFJteAYG796UNYVapYOrF/qhrY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8905:b0:48e:5d91:cffb with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48fe60e7d6emr201978945e9.10.1779124691418; Mon, 18 May 2026 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (deskosmtp.auranext.com. [195.134.167.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-48fe4c8d39esm271445945e9.7.2026.05.18.10.18.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 May 2026 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 19:18:09 +0200 From: Mahe Tardy To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jordan@jrife.io, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 3/6] bpf: add bpf_icmp_send kfunc Message-ID: References: <20260518122842.218522-1-mahe.tardy@gmail.com> <20260518122842.218522-4-mahe.tardy@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:17:45AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 05/18, Mahe Tardy wrote: > > This is needed in the context of Tetragon to provide improved feedback > > (in contrast to just dropping packets) to east-west traffic when blocked > > by policies using cgroup_skb programs. We also extend this kfunc to tc > > program as a convenience. > > > > This reuses concepts from netfilter reject target codepath with the > > differences that: > > * Packets are cloned since the BPF user can still let the packet pass > > (SK_PASS from the cgroup_skb progs for example) and the current skb > > need to stay untouched (cgroup_skb hooks only allow read-only skb > > payload). > > * We protect against recursion since the kfunc, by generating an ICMP > > error message, could retrigger the BPF prog that invoked it. > > > > For now, we support cgroup_skb and tc program types. For cgroup_skb and > > tc egress, almost everything should be good. However for tc ingress: > > - packet will not be routed yet: need to set the net device for > > icmp_send, thus the call to ip[6]_route_reply_fill_dst. > > - fragments could trigger hook: icmp_send will only reply to fragment 0. > > - ensure the ip headers is linearized before processing, and zero out > > the SKB control block after cloning to prevent icmp_send()/icmpv6_send() > > from misinterpreting garbage data as IP options. > > > > Only ICMP_DEST_UNREACH and ICMPV6_DEST_UNREACH are currently supported. > > The interface accepts a type parameter to facilitate future extension to > > other ICMP control message types. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mahe Tardy > > --- > > net/core/filter.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > > index 9590877b0714..843fa775596b 100644 > > --- a/net/core/filter.c > > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > > @@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > +#include > > > > #include "dev.h" > > > > @@ -12464,6 +12466,110 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_xdp_pull_data(struct xdp_md *x, u32 len) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, bpf_icmp_send_in_progress); > > + > > +/** > > + * bpf_icmp_send - Send an ICMP control message > > + * @skb_ctx: Packet that triggered the control message > > + * @type: ICMP type (only ICMP_DEST_UNREACH/ICMPV6_DEST_UNREACH supported) > > + * @code: ICMP code (0-15 for IPv4, 0-6 for IPv6) > > + * > > + * Sends an ICMP control message in response to the packet. The original packet > > + * is cloned before sending the ICMP message, so the BPF program can still let > > + * the packet pass if desired. > > + * > > + * Currently only ICMP_DEST_UNREACH (IPv4) and ICMPV6_DEST_UNREACH (IPv6) are > > + * supported. > > + * > > + * Recursion protection: If called from a context that would trigger recursion > > + * (e.g., root cgroup processing its own ICMP packets), returns -EBUSY on > > + * re-entry. > > + * > > + * Return: 0 on success, negative error code on failure: > > + * -EINVAL: Invalid code parameter > > + * -EBADMSG: Packet too short or malformed > > + * -ENOMEM: Memory allocation failed > > + * -EBUSY: Recursion detected > > + * -EHOSTUNREACH: Routing failed > > + * -EPROTONOSUPPORT: Non-IP protocol > > + * -EOPNOTSUPP: Unsupported ICMP type > > + */ > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_icmp_send(struct __sk_buff *skb_ctx, int type, int code) > > +{ > > + struct sk_buff *skb = (struct sk_buff *)skb_ctx; > > + struct sk_buff *nskb; > > + bool *in_progress; > > + > > + in_progress = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_icmp_send_in_progress); > > + if (*in_progress) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + > > + switch (skb->protocol) { > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INET) > > + case htons(ETH_P_IP): > > + if (type != ICMP_DEST_UNREACH) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + if (code < 0 || code > NR_ICMP_UNREACH) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + nskb = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC); > > + if (!nskb) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + if (!pskb_network_may_pull(nskb, sizeof(struct iphdr))) { > > + kfree_skb(nskb); > > + return -EBADMSG; > > + } > > + > > + if (!skb_dst(nskb) && ip_route_reply_fill_dst(nskb) < 0) { > > + kfree_skb(nskb); > > + return -EHOSTUNREACH; > > + } > > + > > + memset(IPCB(nskb), 0, sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm)); > > + > > + *in_progress = true; > > + icmp_send(nskb, type, code, 0); > > + *in_progress = false; > > [..] > > > + kfree_skb(nskb); > > I was going to suggest to use consume_skb here, I think it is a better fit? Yeah correct, I can replace it with consume_skb, didn't know about it, thanks. > But I'm not sure why you do the clone here, I don't see any requirement from > the icmp_send side, can you clarify? Is it because of the pull? >From the icmp_send side I think it's fine, however, this part might touch the original packet, especially ip_route_reply_fill_dst: if (!pskb_network_may_pull(nskb, sizeof(struct iphdr))) { kfree_skb(nskb); return -EBADMSG; } if (!skb_dst(nskb) && ip_route_reply_fill_dst(nskb) < 0) { kfree_skb(nskb); return -EHOSTUNREACH; } memset(IPCB(nskb), 0, sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm)); All of this is mostly there because we allow this kfunc for tc and especially tc ingress. At this stage, the skb might not have a routing entry yet and icmp_send needs to know the dev from this or fail silently. This is the original reason why I added the the net patches (patch 1 and 2) and it was also spotted by Sashiko when I tried to remove them[^1]. [^1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260515202358.20252C2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org/