Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:I agree it should not call into bpf if the io_uring cannot support non SOL_SOCKET optnames. Otherwise, the bpf prog will get different optval and optlen when running in _sys_getsockopt vs io_uring getsockopt (e.g. in regular _sys_getsockopt(SOL_TCP), bpf expects the optval returned from tcp_getsockopt).
Add BPF hook support for getsockopts io_uring command. So, BPF cgroups
programs can run when SOCKET_URING_OP_GETSOCKOPT command is executed
through io_uring.
This implementation follows a similar approach to what
__sys_getsockopt() does, but, using USER_SOCKPTR() for optval instead of
kernel pointer.
Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
io_uring/uring_cmd.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
index a567dd32df00..9e08a14760c3 100644
--- a/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
+++ b/io_uring/uring_cmd.c
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
#include <linux/io_uring.h>
#include <linux/security.h>
#include <linux/nospec.h>
+#include <linux/compat.h>
+#include <linux/bpf-cgroup.h>
#include <uapi/linux/io_uring.h>
#include <uapi/asm-generic/ioctls.h>
@@ -184,17 +186,23 @@ static inline int io_uring_cmd_getsockopt(struct socket *sock,
if (err)
return err;
- if (level == SOL_SOCKET) {
+ err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ if (level == SOL_SOCKET)
err = sk_getsockopt(sock->sk, level, optname,
USER_SOCKPTR(optval),
KERNEL_SOCKPTR(&optlen));
- if (err)
- return err;
+ if (!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_COMPAT))
+ err = BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT(sock->sk, level,
+ optname,
+ USER_SOCKPTR(optval),
+ KERNEL_SOCKPTR(&optlen),
+ optlen, err);
+
+ if (!err)
return optlen;
- }
Shouldn't you call sock->ops->getsockopt for level!=SOL_SOCKET prior to
running the hook? Before this patch, it would bail out with EOPNOTSUPP,
but now the bpf hook gets called even for level!=SOL_SOCKET, which
doesn't fit __sys_getsockopt. Am I misreading the code?