[PATCH net v4] bpf, net: Check cgroup_bpf_enabled() only once in do_sock_getsockopt()

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:02 AM Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南)
<Tze-nan.Wu at mediatek.com> wrote:
>
>
> BTW, If this should be handled in kernel, modification shown below
> could fix the issue without breaking the "static_branch" usage in both
> macros:
>
>
> +++ /include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h:
>     -#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen)
>     +#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen, compat)
>      ({
>             int __ret = 0;
>             if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
>                 copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
>      +      else
>      +          *compat = true;
>             __ret;
>      })
>
>     #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT(sock, level, optname,
> optval, optlen, max_optlen, retval)
>      ({
>          int __ret = retval;
>     -    if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT) &&
>     -        cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
>     +    if (cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
>              if (!(sock)->sk_prot->bpf_bypass_getsockopt ||
>                ...
>
>   +++ /net/socket.c:
>     int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
>      {
>         ...
>         ...
>     +     /* The meaning of `compat` variable could be changed here
>     +      * to indicate if cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_SOCK_OPS) is
> false.
>     +      */
>         if (!compat)
>     -       max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen);
>     +       max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen,
> &compat);

This is better, but it's still quite a hack. Let's not override it.
We can have another bool, but the question:
do we really need BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN  ?
copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
should be fast enough to do it unconditionally.
What are we saving here?

Stan ?


>
> > Thanks,
> > --tze-nan
>
> *********** MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ***********

Pls fix your mailer. Such a footer is not appropriate for the public
mailing list.