[net-next] sctp: add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback

Commit Message

Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn May 10, 2023, 1:15 p.m. UTC

Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
from running eBPF hook on them.

These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
hook returns an error after success of the original handler
sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.

This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/

Fixes: 0d01da6afc54 ("bpf: implement getsockopt and setsockopt hooks")
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christian Brauner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>
Cc: Neil Horman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Xin Long <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <[e-mail]>
---
 net/sctp/socket.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

Comments

Stanislav Fomichev May 10, 2023, 2:31 p.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 6:15 AM Alexander Mikhalitsyn
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> from running eBPF hook on them.
>
> These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
>
> This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/
>
> Fixes: 0d01da6afc54 ("bpf: implement getsockopt and setsockopt hooks")
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Christian Brauner <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Neil Horman <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Xin Long <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <[e-mail]>

Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>

with a small nit below

> ---
>  net/sctp/socket.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> index cda8c2874691..a9a0ababea90 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> @@ -8281,6 +8281,29 @@ static int sctp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
>         return retval;
>  }
>

[...]

> +bool sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt(int level, int optname)

static bool ... ? You're not making it indirect-callable, so seems
fine to keep private to this compilation unit?

> +{
> +       /*
> +        * These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> +        * hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> +        * sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> +        * syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> +        *
> +        * Let's prevent bpf cgroup hook from running on them.
> +        */
> +       if (level == SOL_SCTP) {
> +               switch (optname) {
> +               case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF:
> +               case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS:
> +                       return true;
> +               default:
> +                       return false;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       return false;
> +}
> +
>  static int sctp_hash(struct sock *sk)
>  {
>         /* STUB */
> @@ -9650,6 +9673,7 @@ struct proto sctp_prot = {
>         .shutdown    =  sctp_shutdown,
>         .setsockopt  =  sctp_setsockopt,
>         .getsockopt  =  sctp_getsockopt,
> +       .bpf_bypass_getsockopt  = sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
>         .sendmsg     =  sctp_sendmsg,
>         .recvmsg     =  sctp_recvmsg,
>         .bind        =  sctp_bind,
> @@ -9705,6 +9729,7 @@ struct proto sctpv6_prot = {
>         .shutdown       = sctp_shutdown,
>         .setsockopt     = sctp_setsockopt,
>         .getsockopt     = sctp_getsockopt,
> +       .bpf_bypass_getsockopt  = sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
>         .sendmsg        = sctp_sendmsg,
>         .recvmsg        = sctp_recvmsg,
>         .bind           = sctp_bind,
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Marcelo Ricardo Leitner May 10, 2023, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> from running eBPF hook on them.
> 
> These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> 
> This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/

I read some of the emails in there but I don't get why the fd leak is
special here. I mean, I get that it leaks, but masking the error
return like this can lead to several other problems in the application
as well.

For example, SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 will trigger a connect(). If it
failed, and the hook returns success, the user app will at least log a
wrong "connection successful".

If the hook can't be responsible for cleaning up before returning a
different value, then maybe we want to extend the list of sockopts in
here. AFAICT these would be the 3 most critical sockopts.

Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn May 10, 2023, 2:47 p.m. UTC | #3

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 4:32 PM Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 6:15 AM Alexander Mikhalitsyn
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> > SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> > from running eBPF hook on them.
> >
> > These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> > hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> > sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> > syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> >
> > This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/
> >
> > Fixes: 0d01da6afc54 ("bpf: implement getsockopt and setsockopt hooks")
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Neil Horman <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Xin Long <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <[e-mail]>
>
> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>
>
> with a small nit below

Hi Stanislav!

Thanks for your review.

I've also added a Suggested-by tag with your name in -v2, because
you've given me this idea to use bpf_bypass_getsockopt.
Hope that you are comfortable with it.

>
> > ---
> >  net/sctp/socket.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > index cda8c2874691..a9a0ababea90 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > @@ -8281,6 +8281,29 @@ static int sctp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
> >         return retval;
> >  }
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > +bool sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt(int level, int optname)
>
> static bool ... ? You're not making it indirect-callable, so seems
> fine to keep private to this compilation unit?

Sure, my bad. Fixed in v2.

Kind regards,
Alex

>
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> > +        * hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> > +        * sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> > +        * syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> > +        *
> > +        * Let's prevent bpf cgroup hook from running on them.
> > +        */
> > +       if (level == SOL_SCTP) {
> > +               switch (optname) {
> > +               case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF:
> > +               case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS:
> > +                       return true;
> > +               default:
> > +                       return false;
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return false;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int sctp_hash(struct sock *sk)
> >  {
> >         /* STUB */
> > @@ -9650,6 +9673,7 @@ struct proto sctp_prot = {
> >         .shutdown    =  sctp_shutdown,
> >         .setsockopt  =  sctp_setsockopt,
> >         .getsockopt  =  sctp_getsockopt,
> > +       .bpf_bypass_getsockopt  = sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
> >         .sendmsg     =  sctp_sendmsg,
> >         .recvmsg     =  sctp_recvmsg,
> >         .bind        =  sctp_bind,
> > @@ -9705,6 +9729,7 @@ struct proto sctpv6_prot = {
> >         .shutdown       = sctp_shutdown,
> >         .setsockopt     = sctp_setsockopt,
> >         .getsockopt     = sctp_getsockopt,
> > +       .bpf_bypass_getsockopt  = sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
> >         .sendmsg        = sctp_sendmsg,
> >         .recvmsg        = sctp_recvmsg,
> >         .bind           = sctp_bind,
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >

Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn May 10, 2023, 2:55 p.m. UTC | #4

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 4:39 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> > SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> > from running eBPF hook on them.
> >
> > These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> > hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> > sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> > syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> >
> > This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/
>
> I read some of the emails in there but I don't get why the fd leak is
> special here. I mean, I get that it leaks, but masking the error
> return like this can lead to several other problems in the application
> as well.
>
> For example, SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 will trigger a connect(). If it
> failed, and the hook returns success, the user app will at least log a
> wrong "connection successful".
>
> If the hook can't be responsible for cleaning up before returning a
> different value, then maybe we want to extend the list of sockopts in
> here. AFAICT these would be the 3 most critical sockopts.
>

Dear Marcelo,

Thanks for pointing this out. Initially this problem was discovered by
Christian Brauner and for SO_PEERPIDFD (a new SOL_SOCKET option that
we want to add),
after this I decided to check if we do fd_install in any other socket
options in the kernel and found that we have 2 cases in SCTP. It was
an accidental finding. :)

So, this patch isn't specific to fd_install things and probably we
should filter out bpf hook from being called for other socket options
as well.

So, I need to filter out SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 and
SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF* for SCTP, right?

Kind regards,
Alex

kernel test robot May 10, 2023, 3:06 p.m. UTC | #5

Hi Alexander,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on net-next/main]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Alexander-Mikhalitsyn/sctp-add-bpf_bypass_getsockopt-proto-callback/20230510-211646
base:   net-next/main
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230510131527.1244929-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn%40canonical.com
patch subject: [PATCH net-next] sctp: add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback
config: m68k-defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230510/[e-mail]/config)
compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
        wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
        chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
        # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/8ad9818b4b74026fe549b2aa34ea800ab6c8e66d
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Alexander-Mikhalitsyn/sctp-add-bpf_bypass_getsockopt-proto-callback/20230510-211646
        git checkout 8ad9818b4b74026fe549b2aa34ea800ab6c8e66d
        # save the config file
        mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k olddefconfig
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k SHELL=/bin/bash net/sctp/

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <[e-mail]>
| Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[e-mail]/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> net/sctp/socket.c:8284:6: warning: no previous prototype for 'sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
    8284 | bool sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt(int level, int optname)
         |      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +/sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt +8284 net/sctp/socket.c

  8283	
> 8284	bool sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt(int level, int optname)
  8285	{
  8286		/*
  8287		 * These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
  8288		 * hook returns an error after success of the original handler
  8289		 * sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
  8290		 * syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
  8291		 *
  8292		 * Let's prevent bpf cgroup hook from running on them.
  8293		 */
  8294		if (level == SOL_SCTP) {
  8295			switch (optname) {
  8296			case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF:
  8297			case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS:
  8298				return true;
  8299			default:
  8300				return false;
  8301			}
  8302		}
  8303	
  8304		return false;
  8305	}
  8306

Marcelo Ricardo Leitner May 10, 2023, 3:18 p.m. UTC | #6

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 4:39 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > > Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> > > SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> > > from running eBPF hook on them.
> > >
> > > These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> > > hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> > > sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> > > syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> > >
> > > This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/
> >
> > I read some of the emails in there but I don't get why the fd leak is
> > special here. I mean, I get that it leaks, but masking the error
> > return like this can lead to several other problems in the application
> > as well.
> >
> > For example, SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 will trigger a connect(). If it
> > failed, and the hook returns success, the user app will at least log a
> > wrong "connection successful".
> >
> > If the hook can't be responsible for cleaning up before returning a
> > different value, then maybe we want to extend the list of sockopts in
> > here. AFAICT these would be the 3 most critical sockopts.
> >
> 
> Dear Marcelo,

Hello!

> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. Initially this problem was discovered by
> Christian Brauner and for SO_PEERPIDFD (a new SOL_SOCKET option that
> we want to add),
> after this I decided to check if we do fd_install in any other socket
> options in the kernel and found that we have 2 cases in SCTP. It was
> an accidental finding. :)
> 
> So, this patch isn't specific to fd_install things and probably we
> should filter out bpf hook from being called for other socket options
> as well.

Understood.

> 
> So, I need to filter out SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 and
> SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF* for SCTP, right?

Gotta say, it seems weird that it will filter out some of the most
important sockopts. But I'm not acquainted to bpf hooks so I won't
question (much? :) ) that.

Considering that filtering is needed, then yes, on getsock those are
ones I'm seeing that needs filtering. Otherwise they will either
trigger leakage or will confuse the application.

Should we care about setsock as well? We have SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX
and SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX_OLD in there, and well, I guess any of those
would misbehave if they failed and yet the hook returns success.

Thanks,
Marcelo

Stanislav Fomichev May 10, 2023, 9:22 p.m. UTC | #7

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:18 AM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 4:39 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > > > Add bpf_bypass_getsockopt proto callback and filter out
> > > > SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF and SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS socket options
> > > > from running eBPF hook on them.
> > > >
> > > > These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
> > > > hook returns an error after success of the original handler
> > > > sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
> > > > syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
> > > >
> > > > This patch was born as a result of discussion around a new SCM_PIDFD interface:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/
> > >
> > > I read some of the emails in there but I don't get why the fd leak is
> > > special here. I mean, I get that it leaks, but masking the error
> > > return like this can lead to several other problems in the application
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > For example, SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 will trigger a connect(). If it
> > > failed, and the hook returns success, the user app will at least log a
> > > wrong "connection successful".
> > >
> > > If the hook can't be responsible for cleaning up before returning a
> > > different value, then maybe we want to extend the list of sockopts in
> > > here. AFAICT these would be the 3 most critical sockopts.
> > >
> >
> > Dear Marcelo,
>
> Hello!
>
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out. Initially this problem was discovered by
> > Christian Brauner and for SO_PEERPIDFD (a new SOL_SOCKET option that
> > we want to add),
> > after this I decided to check if we do fd_install in any other socket
> > options in the kernel and found that we have 2 cases in SCTP. It was
> > an accidental finding. :)
> >
> > So, this patch isn't specific to fd_install things and probably we
> > should filter out bpf hook from being called for other socket options
> > as well.
>
> Understood.
>
> >
> > So, I need to filter out SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX3 and
> > SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF* for SCTP, right?
>
> Gotta say, it seems weird that it will filter out some of the most
> important sockopts. But I'm not acquainted to bpf hooks so I won't
> question (much? :) ) that.

Thanks for raising this. Alexander, maybe you can respin your v2 to
include these as well?

> Considering that filtering is needed, then yes, on getsock those are
> ones I'm seeing that needs filtering. Otherwise they will either
> trigger leakage or will confuse the application.

[..]

> Should we care about setsock as well? We have SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX
> and SCTP_SOCKOPT_CONNECTX_OLD in there, and well, I guess any of those
> would misbehave if they failed and yet the hook returns success.

For setsockopt, the bpf program runs before the kernel, so setsockopt
shouldn't have those issues we're observing with getsockopt (which
runs after the kernel and has an option to ignore kernel value).

> Thanks,
> Marcelo

Patch

diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
index cda8c2874691..a9a0ababea90 100644
--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -8281,6 +8281,29 @@  static int sctp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname,
 	return retval;
 }
 
+bool sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt(int level, int optname)
+{
+	/*
+	 * These options do fd_install(), and if BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT
+	 * hook returns an error after success of the original handler
+	 * sctp_getsockopt(...), userspace will receive an error from getsockopt
+	 * syscall and will be not aware that fd was successfully installed into fdtable.
+	 *
+	 * Let's prevent bpf cgroup hook from running on them.
+	 */
+	if (level == SOL_SCTP) {
+		switch (optname) {
+		case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF:
+		case SCTP_SOCKOPT_PEELOFF_FLAGS:
+			return true;
+		default:
+			return false;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 static int sctp_hash(struct sock *sk)
 {
 	/* STUB */
@@ -9650,6 +9673,7 @@  struct proto sctp_prot = {
 	.shutdown    =	sctp_shutdown,
 	.setsockopt  =	sctp_setsockopt,
 	.getsockopt  =	sctp_getsockopt,
+	.bpf_bypass_getsockopt	= sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
 	.sendmsg     =	sctp_sendmsg,
 	.recvmsg     =	sctp_recvmsg,
 	.bind        =	sctp_bind,
@@ -9705,6 +9729,7 @@  struct proto sctpv6_prot = {
 	.shutdown	= sctp_shutdown,
 	.setsockopt	= sctp_setsockopt,
 	.getsockopt	= sctp_getsockopt,
+	.bpf_bypass_getsockopt	= sctp_bpf_bypass_getsockopt,
 	.sendmsg	= sctp_sendmsg,
 	.recvmsg	= sctp_recvmsg,
 	.bind		= sctp_bind,