From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
To: pablo@netfilter.org, kadlec@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
ast@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC nf-next v4 1/2] netfilter: bpf: support prog update
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:03:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00d390f3-1d92-43e5-adec-b7d0b8885fdc@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1703836449-88705-2-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
On 12/29/23 3:54 PM, D. Wythe wrote:
> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
>
> To support the prog update, we need to ensure that the prog seen
> within the hook is always valid. Considering that hooks are always
> protected by rcu_read_lock(), which provide us the ability to
> access the prog under rcu.
>
> Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
> index e502ec0..7c32ccb 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.c
> @@ -8,26 +8,26 @@
> #include <net/netfilter/nf_bpf_link.h>
> #include <uapi/linux/netfilter_ipv4.h>
>
> -static unsigned int nf_hook_run_bpf(void *bpf_prog, struct sk_buff *skb,
> - const struct nf_hook_state *s)
> -{
> - const struct bpf_prog *prog = bpf_prog;
> - struct bpf_nf_ctx ctx = {
> - .state = s,
> - .skb = skb,
> - };
> -
> - return bpf_prog_run(prog, &ctx);
> -}
> -
> struct bpf_nf_link {
> struct bpf_link link;
> struct nf_hook_ops hook_ops;
> struct net *net;
> u32 dead;
> const struct nf_defrag_hook *defrag_hook;
> + struct rcu_head head;
> };
>
> +static unsigned int nf_hook_run_bpf(void *bpf_link, struct sk_buff *skb,
> + const struct nf_hook_state *s)
> +{
> + const struct bpf_nf_link *nf_link = bpf_link;
> + struct bpf_nf_ctx ctx = {
> + .state = s,
> + .skb = skb,
> + };
> + return bpf_prog_run(rcu_dereference_raw(nf_link->link.prog), &ctx);
> +}
> +
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV4) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV6)
> static const struct nf_defrag_hook *
> get_proto_defrag_hook(struct bpf_nf_link *link,
> @@ -126,8 +126,7 @@ static void bpf_nf_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> static void bpf_nf_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link)
> {
> struct bpf_nf_link *nf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_nf_link, link);
> -
> - kfree(nf_link);
> + kfree_rcu(nf_link, head);
> }
>
> static int bpf_nf_link_detach(struct bpf_link *link)
> @@ -162,7 +161,22 @@ static int bpf_nf_link_fill_link_info(const struct bpf_link *link,
> static int bpf_nf_link_update(struct bpf_link *link, struct bpf_prog *new_prog,
> struct bpf_prog *old_prog)
> {
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + struct bpf_nf_link *nf_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_nf_link, link);
> + int err = 0;
> +
> + if (nf_link->dead)
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + if (old_prog) {
> + /* target old_prog mismatch */
> + if (!cmpxchg(&link->prog, old_prog, new_prog))
> + return -EPERM;
> + } else {
> + old_prog = xchg(&link->prog, new_prog);
> + }
> +
> + bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
> + return err;
> }
I made a mistake here, and I will fix it in the next version.
Sorry for that.
D. Wythe
>
> static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_nf_link_lops = {
> @@ -226,7 +240,11 @@ int bpf_nf_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
>
> link->hook_ops.hook = nf_hook_run_bpf;
> link->hook_ops.hook_ops_type = NF_HOOK_OP_BPF;
> - link->hook_ops.priv = prog;
> +
> + /* bpf_nf_link_release & bpf_nf_link_dealloc() can ensures that link remains
> + * valid at all times within nf_hook_run_bpf().
> + */
> + link->hook_ops.priv = link;
>
> link->hook_ops.pf = attr->link_create.netfilter.pf;
> link->hook_ops.priority = attr->link_create.netfilter.priority;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-29 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-29 7:54 [RFC nf-next v4 0/2] " D. Wythe
2023-12-29 7:54 ` [RFC nf-next v4 1/2] " D. Wythe
2023-12-29 8:03 ` D. Wythe [this message]
2023-12-29 7:54 ` [RFC nf-next v4 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add netfilter link prog update test D. Wythe
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=00d390f3-1d92-43e5-adec-b7d0b8885fdc@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®