Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:00 PM John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Incorrect accounting fwd_alloc can result in a warning when the socket
> > is torn down,
> >
[...]
> > To resolve lets only account for sockets on the ingress queue that are
> > still associated with the current socket. On the redirect case we will
> > check memory limits per 6fa9201a89898, but will omit fwd_alloc accounting
> > until skb is actually enqueued. When the skb is sent via
> > skb_send_sock_locked
> > or received with sk_psock_skb_ingress memory will be claimed on psock_other.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You mean sk_psock_skb_ingress(), right?
Yes.
[...]
> > @@ -880,12 +876,13 @@ static void sk_psock_strp_read(struct strparser
> > *strp, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > kfree_skb(skb);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - skb_set_owner_r(skb, sk);
> > prog = READ_ONCE(psock->progs.skb_verdict);
> > if (likely(prog)) {
> > + skb->sk = psock->sk;
>
> Why is skb_orphan() not needed here?
These come from strparser which do not have skb->sk set.
>
> Nit: You can just use 'sk' here, so "skb->sk = sk".
Sure that is a bit nicer, will respin with this.
>
>
> > tcp_skb_bpf_redirect_clear(skb);
> > ret = sk_psock_bpf_run(psock, prog, skb);
> > ret = sk_psock_map_verd(ret,
> > tcp_skb_bpf_redirect_fetch(skb));
> > + skb->sk = NULL;
>
> Why do you want to set it to NULL here?
So we don't cause the stack to throw other errors later if we
were to call skb_orphan for example. Various places in the skb
helpers expect both skb->sk and skb->destructor to be set together
and here we are just using it as a mechanism to feed the sk into
the BPF program side. The above skb_set_owner_r for example
would likely BUG().
>
> Thanks.
