On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 19:52 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:45:42PM -0800, Lawrence Brakmo wrote:

quoted

Adds field bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags to tcp_sock and bpf_sock_ops. Its primary
use is to determine if there should be calls to sock_ops bpf program at
various points in the TCP code. The field is initialized to zero,
disabling the calls. A sock_ops BPF program can set it, per connection and
as necessary, when the connection is established.

It also adds support for reading and writting the field within a
sock_ops BPF program. Reading is done by accessing the field directly.
However, writing is done through the helper function
bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set, in order to return an error if a BPF program
is trying to set a callback that is not supported in the current kernel
(i.e. running an older kernel). The helper function returns 0 if it was
able to set all of the bits set in the argument, a positive number
containing the bits that could not be set, or -EINVAL if the socket is
not a full TCP socket.

...

quoted

+/* Sock_ops bpf program related variables */
+#ifdef CONFIG_BPF
+	u8	bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags;  /* Control calling BPF programs
+					 * values defined in uapi/linux/tcp.h

I guess we can extend u8 into u16 or more if necessary in the future.

quoted

+ * int bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set(bpf_sock_ops, flags)
+ *     Set callback flags for sock_ops
+ *     @bpf_sock_ops: pointer to bpf_sock_ops_kern struct
+ *     @flags: flags value
+ *     Return: 0 for no error
+ *             -EINVAL if there is no full tcp socket
+ *             bits in flags that are not supported by current kernel

...

quoted

+BPF_CALL_2(bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set, struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *, bpf_sock,
+	   int, argval)
+{
+	struct sock *sk = bpf_sock->sk;
+	int val = argval & BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS;
+
+	if (!sk_fullsock(sk))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_INET
+	if (val)
+		tcp_sk(sk)->bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags = val;
+
+	return argval & (~BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS);

interesting idea! took me some time to realize the potential
of such semantics, but now I like it a lot.
It blends 'set good flag' with 'which flags are supported' logic
into single helper. Nice.
Thanks for adding a test for both ways.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

Eric, does this approach address your concerns?

Yes, this seems fine, thanks.