Re: [bpf-next PATCH v3 4/6] bpf, sockmap: remove dropped data on errors in redirect case
flat view
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Date: 2020-10-12 12:04:24
Also in:
bpf
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 08:37 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
In the sk_skb redirect case we didn't handle the case where we overrun
the sk_rmem_alloc entry on ingress redirect or sk_wmem_alloc on egress.
Because we didn't have anything implemented we simply dropped the skb.
This meant data could be dropped if socket memory accounting was in
place.
This fixes the above dropped data case by moving the memory checks
later in the code where we actually do the send or recv. This pushes
those checks into the workqueue and allows us to return an EAGAIN error
which in turn allows us to try again later from the workqueue.
Fixes: 51199405f9672 ("bpf: skb_verdict, support SK_PASS on RX BPF path")
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
---
net/core/skmsg.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -709,30 +711,28 @@ static void sk_psock_skb_redirect(struct sk_buff *skb) { struct sk_psock *psock_other; struct sock *sk_other; - bool ingress; sk_other = tcp_skb_bpf_redirect_fetch(skb); + /* This error is a buggy BPF program, it returned a redirect + * return code, but then didn't set a redirect interface. + */ if (unlikely(!sk_other)) { kfree_skb(skb); return; } psock_other = sk_psock(sk_other); + /* This error indicates the socket is being torn down or had another + * error that caused the pipe to break. We can't send a packet on + * a socket that is in this state so we drop the skb. + */ if (!psock_other || sock_flag(sk_other, SOCK_DEAD) || !sk_psock_test_state(psock_other, SK_PSOCK_TX_ENABLED)) { kfree_skb(skb); return; } - ingress = tcp_skb_bpf_ingress(skb); - if ((!ingress && sock_writeable(sk_other)) || - (ingress && - atomic_read(&sk_other->sk_rmem_alloc) <= - sk_other->sk_rcvbuf)) {
I'm wondering why the check for going over socket's rcvbuf was removed? I see that we now rely exclusively on sk_psock_skb_ingress→sk_rmem_schedule for sk_rmem_alloc checks, which I don't think applies the rcvbuf limit.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
- skb_queue_tail(&psock_other->ingress_skb, skb); - schedule_work(&psock_other->work); - } else { - kfree_skb(skb); - } + skb_queue_tail(&psock_other->ingress_skb, skb); + schedule_work(&psock_other->work); } static void sk_psock_tls_verdict_apply(struct sk_buff *skb, int verdict)