[bpf-next] xsk: Try to make xdp_umem_reg extension a bit more future-proof

Commit Message

Stanislav Fomichev July 26, 2024, 10:20 p.m. UTC

We recently found out that extending xsk_umem_reg might be a bit
complicated due to not enforcing padding to be zero [0]. Add
a couple of things to make it less error-prone:
1. Remove xdp_umem_reg_v2 since its sizeof is the same as xdp_umem_reg
2. Add BUILD_BUG_ON that checks that the size of xdp_umem_reg_v1 is less
   than xdp_umem_reg; presumably, when we get to v2, there is gonna
   be a similar line to enforce that sizeof(v2) > sizeof(v1)
3. Add BUILD_BUG_ON to make sure the last field plus its size matches
   the overall struct size. The intent is to demonstrate that we don't
   have any lingering padding.

0: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZqI29QE+5JnkdPmE@boxer/T/#me03113f7c2458fd08f3c4114a7a9472ac3646c98

Reported-by: Julian Schindel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Magnus Karlsson <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[e-mail]>
---
 net/xdp/xsk.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Comments

[e-mail] July 30, 2024, 10:20 p.m. UTC | #1

Hello:

This patch was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Martin KaFai Lau <[e-mail]>:

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:20:48 -0700 you wrote:
> We recently found out that extending xsk_umem_reg might be a bit
> complicated due to not enforcing padding to be zero [0]. Add
> a couple of things to make it less error-prone:
> 1. Remove xdp_umem_reg_v2 since its sizeof is the same as xdp_umem_reg
> 2. Add BUILD_BUG_ON that checks that the size of xdp_umem_reg_v1 is less
>    than xdp_umem_reg; presumably, when we get to v2, there is gonna
>    be a similar line to enforce that sizeof(v2) > sizeof(v1)
> 3. Add BUILD_BUG_ON to make sure the last field plus its size matches
>    the overall struct size. The intent is to demonstrate that we don't
>    have any lingering padding.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next] xsk: Try to make xdp_umem_reg extension a bit more future-proof
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/32654bbd6313

You are awesome, thank you!

Patch

diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
index 7e16336044b2..1140b2a120ca 100644
--- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
+++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
@@ -1320,14 +1320,6 @@  struct xdp_umem_reg_v1 {
 	__u32 headroom;
 };
 
-struct xdp_umem_reg_v2 {
-	__u64 addr; /* Start of packet data area */
-	__u64 len; /* Length of packet data area */
-	__u32 chunk_size;
-	__u32 headroom;
-	__u32 flags;
-};
-
 static int xsk_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
 			  sockptr_t optval, unsigned int optlen)
 {
@@ -1371,10 +1363,19 @@  static int xsk_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
 
 		if (optlen < sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1))
 			return -EINVAL;
-		else if (optlen < sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v2))
-			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1);
 		else if (optlen < sizeof(mr))
-			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v2);
+			mr_size = sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1);
+
+		BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg_v1) >= sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg));
+
+		/* Make sure the last field of the struct doesn't have
+		 * uninitialized padding. All padding has to be explicit
+		 * and has to be set to zero by the userspace to make
+		 * struct xdp_umem_reg extensible in the future.
+		 */
+		BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct xdp_umem_reg, tx_metadata_len) +
+			     sizeof_field(struct xdp_umem_reg, tx_metadata_len) !=
+			     sizeof(struct xdp_umem_reg));
 
 		if (copy_from_sockptr(&mr, optval, mr_size))
 			return -EFAULT;