# Re: \[PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4\] bpf: enable bpf\_{g,s}etsockopt in BPF\_CGROUP\_UDP{4,6}\_RECVMSG

- From: Daniel Borkmann \<daniel@iogearbox.net\>
- Date: 2021-01-29 01:10:18 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/01/7759255
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/01/7759215/t.md

```text
On 1/29/21 1:59 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Daniel Borkmann [ref] wrote:
>> On 1/28/21 12:28 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> Those hooks run as BPF_CGROUP_RUN_SA_PROG_LOCK and operate on
>>> a locked socket.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <redacted>
>>> ---
>>>    net/core/filter.c                                 | 4 ++++
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg4_prog.c | 5 +++++
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/recvmsg6_prog.c | 5 +++++
>>>    3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>>> index ba436b1d70c2..e15d4741719a 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>> @@ -7023,6 +7023,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT:
>>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG:
>>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME:
>>> @@ -7039,6 +7041,8 @@ sock_addr_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET6_CONNECT:
>>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_RECVMSG:
>>> +             case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_RECVMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP4_SENDMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_UDP6_SENDMSG:
>>>                case BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME:
>>
>> Looks good overall, also thanks for adding the test cases! I was about to apply, but noticed one
>> small nit that would be good to get resolved before that. Above you now list all the attach hooks
>> for sock_addr ctx, so we should just remove the whole switch that tests on prog->expected_attach_type
>> altogether in this last commit.
> Sure, I can resend tomorrow.
> But do you think it's safe and there won't ever be another sock_addr
> hook that runs with an unlocked socket?

Ok, that rationale seems reasonable to keep the series as is. It probably makes sense to add a
small comment at least to the commit log to explain the reasoning, I can do so while applying.
So no need for v3, thanks!
```