Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220113070245.791577-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
 <87sftbobys.fsf@cloudflare.com> <20220125224524.fkodqvknsluihw74@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220125224524.fkodqvknsluihw74@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:02:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKbYCCYjCMhEV7p1YzkAVSKvg-1VKfWVQYVL0TaESNxBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add document for 'dst_port' of 'struct bpf_sock'
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Cc:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
        Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mengen Sun <mengensun@tencent.com>, flyingpeng@tencent.com,
        mungerjiang@tencent.com, Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:45 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > index b0383d371b9a..891a182a749a 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -5500,7 +5500,11 @@ struct bpf_sock {
> > >     __u32 src_ip4;
> > >     __u32 src_ip6[4];
> > >     __u32 src_port;         /* host byte order */
> > > -   __u32 dst_port;         /* network byte order */
> > > +   __u32 dst_port;         /* low 16-bits are in network byte order,
> > > +                            * and high 16-bits are filled by 0.
> > > +                            * So the real port in host byte order is
> > > +                            * bpf_ntohs((__u16)dst_port).
> > > +                            */
> > >     __u32 dst_ip4;
> > >     __u32 dst_ip6[4];
> > >     __u32 state;
> >
> > I'm probably missing something obvious, but is there anything stopping
> > us from splitting the field, so that dst_ports is 16-bit wide?
> >
> > I gave a quick check to the change below and it seems to pass verifier
> > checks and sock_field tests.
> >
> > IDK, just an idea. Didn't give it a deeper thought.
> >
> > --8<--
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 4a2f7041ebae..344d62ccafba 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -5574,7 +5574,8 @@ struct bpf_sock {
> >       __u32 src_ip4;
> >       __u32 src_ip6[4];
> >       __u32 src_port;         /* host byte order */
> > -     __u32 dst_port;         /* network byte order */
> > +     __u16 unused;
> > +     __u16 dst_port;         /* network byte order */
> This will break the existing bpf prog.

I think Jakub's idea is partially expressed:
+       case offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port):
+               bpf_ctx_record_field_size(info, sizeof(__u16));
+               return bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok(off, size, sizeof(__u16));

Either 'unused' needs to be after dst_port or
bpf_sock_is_valid_access() needs to allow offset at 'unused'
and at 'dst_port'.
And allow u32 access though the size is actually u16.
Then the existing bpf progs (without recompiling) should work?