Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> writes:
> On 06/28/2019 09:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 06/23/2019 04:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> The bpf_redirect_map() helper used by XDP programs doesn't return any
>>>> indication of whether it can successfully redirect to the map index it was
>>>> given. Instead, BPF programs have to track this themselves, leading to
>>>> programs using duplicate maps to track which entries are populated in the
>>>> devmap.
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes this by moving the map lookup into the bpf_redirect_map()
>>>> helper, which makes it possible to return failure to the eBPF program. The
>>>> lower bits of the flags argument is used as the return code, which means
>>>> that existing users who pass a '0' flag argument will get XDP_ABORTED.
>>>>
>>>> With this, a BPF program can check the return code from the helper call and
>>>> react by, for instance, substituting a different redirect. This works for
>>>> any type of map used for redirect.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Overall series looks good to me. Just very small things inline here & in the
>>> other two patches:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> @@ -3750,9 +3742,16 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_xdp_redirect_map, struct bpf_map *,
>>>> map, u32, ifindex,
>>>> {
>>>> struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);
>>>>
>>>> - if (unlikely(flags))
>>>> + /* Lower bits of the flags are used as return code on lookup failure */
>>>> + if (unlikely(flags > XDP_TX))
>>>> return XDP_ABORTED;
>>>>
>>>> + ri->item = __xdp_map_lookup_elem(map, ifindex);
>>>> + if (unlikely(!ri->item)) {
>>>> + WRITE_ONCE(ri->map, NULL);
>>>
>>> This WRITE_ONCE() is not needed. We never set it before at this point.
>>
>> You mean the WRITE_ONCE() wrapper is not needed, or the set-to-NULL is
>> not needed? The reason I added it is in case an eBPF program calls the
>> helper twice before returning, where the first lookup succeeds but the
>> second fails; in that case we want to clear the ->map pointer, no?
>
> Yeah I meant the set-to-NULL. So if first call succeeds, and the second one
> fails, then the expected semantics wrt the first call are as if the program
> would have called bpf_xdp_redirect() only?
>
> Looking at the code again, if we set ri->item to NULL, then we /must/
> also set ri->map to NULL. I guess there are two options: i) leave as
> is, ii) keep the __xdp_map_lookup_elem() result in a temp var, if it's
> NULL return flags, otherwise only /then/ update ri->item, so that
> semantics are similar to the invalid flags check earlier. I guess fine
> either way, in case of i) there should probably be a comment since
> it's less obvious.
Yeah, I think a temp var is probably clearer, will do that :)
-Toke
