Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <[email protected]>
v2->v3: Sent to bpf-next instead of generic patch
v1->v2: Addressed feedback about where check should be removed.
---
include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h | 7 ++++---
kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 3 ---
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
index a789266feac3..b28dc0ff4218 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
@@ -195,10 +195,11 @@ static inline bool cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(struct sock *sk,
#define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS(sk, skb) \
({ \
int __ret = 0; \
- if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && \
- cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sk, CGROUP_INET_INGRESS)) \
+ if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && \
+ cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sk, CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && sk && \
+ sk_fullsock(sk)) \
__ret = __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb(sk, skb, \
- CGROUP_INET_INGRESS); \
+ CGROUP_INET_INGRESS); \
\
__ret; \
})
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
index 491d20038cbe..644bfb39cf9d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
@@ -1364,9 +1364,6 @@ int __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb(struct sock *sk,
struct cgroup *cgrp;
int ret;
- if (!sk || !sk_fullsock(sk))
- return 0;
-
if (sk->sk_family != AF_INET && sk->sk_family != AF_INET6)
return 0;
--
2.43.0
On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
> the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
> reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
> and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
>
> To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
> socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
> function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <[email protected]>
>
> v2->v3: Sent to bpf-next instead of generic patch
> v1->v2: Addressed feedback about where check should be removed.
> ---
> include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h | 7 ++++---
> kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 3 ---
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> index a789266feac3..b28dc0ff4218 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h
> @@ -195,10 +195,11 @@ static inline bool cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(struct sock *sk,
> #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS(sk, skb) \
> ({ \
> int __ret = 0; \
> - if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && \
> - cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sk, CGROUP_INET_INGRESS)) \
> + if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && \
> + cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sk, CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && sk && \
> + sk_fullsock(sk)) \
> __ret = __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb(sk, skb, \
[..]
> - CGROUP_INET_INGRESS); \
> + CGROUP_INET_INGRESS); \
The bot still can't git-am it. And I can't either. Did you somehow
manually mangle that part above? The original line has less trailing spaces
than what your diff source has, look at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/tree/include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h#n201
Can you drop this part? Let the idents stay broken :-)
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:01:21PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> The bot still can't git-am it. And I can't either. Did you somehow
> manually mangle that part above? The original line has less trailing spaces
> than what your diff source has, look at:
I literally saw the bot issue and the spaces just before you sent this.
> Can you drop this part? Let the idents stay broken :-)
Just did. Didn't manually edit the patch so I don't exactly know how
that happened, but thanks for pointing it out.