Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 2/4] xdp: extend xdp_redirect_map with broadcast support

Hangbin Liu [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:23:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:26:08PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
[ ... ]

quoted

+static __always_inline int __bpf_xdp_redirect_map(struct bpf_map *map, u32 ifindex,
+						  u64 flags, u64 flag_mask,
 						  void *lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, u32 key))
 {
 	struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);
 
 	/* Lower bits of the flags are used as return code on lookup failure */
-	if (unlikely(flags > XDP_TX))
+	if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_F_ACTION_MASK | flag_mask)))
 		return XDP_ABORTED;
 
 	ri->tgt_value = lookup_elem(map, ifindex);
-	if (unlikely(!ri->tgt_value)) {
+	if (unlikely(!ri->tgt_value) && !(flags & BPF_F_BROADCAST)) {
 		/* If the lookup fails we want to clear out the state in the
 		 * redirect_info struct completely, so that if an eBPF program
 		 * performs multiple lookups, the last one always takes

@@ -1482,13 +1484,21 @@ static __always_inline int __bpf_xdp_redirect_map(struct bpf_map *map, u32 ifind
 		 */
 		ri->map_id = INT_MAX; /* Valid map id idr range: [1,INT_MAX[ */
 		ri->map_type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_UNSPEC;
-		return flags;
+		return flags & BPF_F_ACTION_MASK;
 	}
 
 	ri->tgt_index = ifindex;
 	ri->map_id = map->id;
 	ri->map_type = map->map_type;
 
+	if (flags & BPF_F_BROADCAST) {
+		WRITE_ONCE(ri->map, map);

Why only WRITE_ONCE on ri->map?  Is it needed?

I think this is make sure the map pointer assigned to ri->map safely.
which starts from commit f6069b9aa993 ("bpf: fix redirect to map under tail
calls")

The reason WRITE_ONCE() is only on the map field is because that's the
one that could be changed by a remote CPU (in bpf_clear_redirect_map())
- everything else is only accessed on the local CPU.

As for whether it's strictly needed from a memory model PoV, I'm not
actually sure (and should we be using smp_{store_release,load_acquire}()
instead?); I view it mostly as an annotation to make it clear that the
map field is 'special' in this respect...

-Toke