[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v5] bpf, test_run: fix &xdp_frame misplacement for LIVE_FRAMES
On 2/21/23 4:35 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Alexander Lobakin <>
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 16:46:27 +0100
>> &xdp_buff and &xdp_frame are bound in a way that
>> xdp_buff->data_hard_start == xdp_frame
>> It's always the case and e.g. xdp_convert_buff_to_frame() relies on
>> this.
>> IOW, the following:
>> for (u32 i = 0; i < 0xdead; i++) {
>> xdpf = xdp_convert_buff_to_frame(&xdp);
>> xdp_convert_frame_to_buff(xdpf, &xdp);
>> }
>> shouldn't ever modify @xdpf's contents or the pointer itself.
>> However, "live packet" code wrongly treats &xdp_frame as part of its
>> context placed *before* the data_hard_start. With such flow,
>> data_hard_start is sizeof(*xdpf) off to the right and no longer points
>> to the XDP frame.
>> Instead of replacing `sizeof(ctx)` with `offsetof(ctx, xdpf)` in several
>> places and praying that there are no more miscalcs left somewhere in the
>> code, unionize ::frm with ::data in a flex array, so that both starts
>> pointing to the actual data_hard_start and the XDP frame actually starts
>> being a part of it, i.e. a part of the headroom, not the context.
>> A nice side effect is that the maximum frame size for this mode gets
>> increased by 40 bytes, as xdp_buff::frame_sz includes everything from
>> data_hard_start (-> includes xdpf already) to the end of XDP/skb shared
>> info.
>> Also update %MAX_PKT_SIZE accordingly in the selftests code. Leave it
>> hardcoded for 64 bit && 4k pages, it can be made more flexible later on.
>> Minor: align `&head->data` with how `head->frm` is assigned for
>> consistency.
>> Minor #2: rename 'frm' to 'frame' in &xdp_page_head while at it for
>> clarity.
>> (was found while testing XDP traffic generator on ice, which calls
>> xdp_convert_frame_to_buff() for each XDP frame)
> Sorry, maybe this could be taken directly to net-next while it's still
> open? It was tested and then reverted from bpf-next only due to not 100%
> compile-time assertion, which I removed in this version. No more
> changes. I doubt there'll be a second PR from bpf and would like this to
> hit mainline before RC1 :s

I think this could go to bpf soon instead of bpf-next. The change is specific to
the bpf selftest. It is better to go through bpf to get bpf CI coverage.

>> Fixes: b530e9e1063e ("bpf: Add "live packet" mode for XDP in BPF_PROG_RUN")
>> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <>
>> Link:
>> Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <>
> (>_< those two last tags are incorrect, lemme know if I should resubmit
> it without them or you could do it if ok with taking it now)

Please respin when it can be landed to the bpf tree on top of the s390 changes.

 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:30    [W:0.124 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site