On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:17:12PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 10:59 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:23:29PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> >>
> >> +/* User return codes for SK_MSG prog type. */
> >> +enum sk_msg_action {
> >> + SK_MSG_DROP = 0,
> >> + SK_MSG_PASS,
> >> +};
> >
> > do we really need new enum here?
> > It's the same as 'enum sk_action' and SK_DROP == SK_MSG_DROP
> > and there will be only drop/pass in both enums.
> > Also I don't see where these two new SK_MSG_* are used...
> >
> >> +
> >> +/* user accessible metadata for SK_MSG packet hook, new fields must
> >> + * be added to the end of this structure
> >> + */
> >> +struct sk_msg_md {
> >> + __u32 data;
> >> + __u32 data_end;
> >> +};
> >
> > I think it's time for me to ask for forgiveness :)
>
> :-)
>
> > I used __u32 for data and data_end only because all other fields
> > in __sk_buff were __u32 at the time and I couldn't easily figure out
> > how to teach verifier to recognize 8-byte rewrites.
> > Unfortunately my mistake stuck and was copied over into xdp.
> > Since this is new struct let's do it right and add
> > 'void *data, *data_end' here,
> > since bpf prog will use them as 'void *' pointers.
> > There are no compat issues here, since bpf is always 64-bit.
>
> But at least offset-wise when you do the ctx rewrite this would then
> be a bit more tricky when you have 64 bit kernel with 32 bit user
> space since void * members are in each cases at different offset. So
> unless I'm missing something, this still should either be __u32 or
> __u64 instead of void *, no?
there is no 32-bit user space. these structs are seen by bpf progs only
and bpf is 64-bit only too.
unless I'm missing your point.
