On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:22 PM -08, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:

On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:

[...]

quoted

--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sock_fields.c

@@ -256,10 +256,23 @@ int ingress_read_sock_fields(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 	return CG_OK;
 }
 
+/*
+ * NOTE: 4-byte load from bpf_sock at dst_port offset is quirky. The
+ * result is left shifted on little-endian architectures because the
+ * access is converted to a 2-byte load. The quirky behavior is kept
+ * for backward compatibility.
+ */
 static __noinline bool sk_dst_port__load_word(struct bpf_sock *sk)
 {
+#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
+	const __u8 SHIFT = 16;
+#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
+	const __u8 SHIFT = 0;
+#else
+#error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER__"
+#endif
 	__u32 *word = (__u32 *)&sk->dst_port;
-	return word[0] == bpf_htonl(0xcafe0000);
+	return word[0] == bpf_htonl(0xcafe << SHIFT);

I believe it should be fine.  It is the behavior even before
commit 4421a582718a ("bpf: Make dst_port field in struct bpf_sock 16-bit wide") ?

Yes, exactly. AFAICT there was no change in behavior in commit
4421a582718a, that is:

  1. 4-byte load behaves like it did, in its quirky way,
  2. 2-byte load at offset dst_port works the same
  3. 2-byte load at offset dst_port+2 continues to be rejected.

btw, is it the same as testing "return word[0] == bpf_hton's'(0xcafe);"

Right. Clever observation. I got the impression from the original
problem report [1] that the users were failing when trying to do:

  bpf_htonl(sk->dst_port) == 0xcafe

Hence I the bpf_htonl() use here.

But perhaps it's better to promote this cleaner pattern in tests.

I will respin it once we hash out the details of what the access should
look like on big-endian with Ilya.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220113070245.791577-1-imagedong@tencent.com/ (local)

[...]