| Message ID | a89dbb43f7196f6ba8c5fd1f07c7e4bcc97726c3.1504913751.git.daniel@iogearbox.net |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] bpf: make error reporting in bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action more clear | expand |
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:40:35 +0200 > Differ between illegal XDP action code and just driver > unsupported one to provide better feedback when we throw > a one-time warning here. Reason is that with 814abfabef3c > ("xdp: add bpf_redirect helper function") not all drivers > support the new XDP return code yet and thus they will > fall into their 'default' case when checking for return > codes after program return, which then triggers a > bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action() stating that the return > code is illegal, but from XDP perspective it's not. > > I decided not to place something like a XDP_ACT_MAX define > into uapi i) given we don't have this either for all other > program types, ii) future action codes could have further > encoding there, which would render such define unsuitable > and we wouldn't be able to rip it out again, and iii) we > rarely add new action codes. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Applied.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index ba848b7..43ab5c4 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -766,8 +766,8 @@ struct bpf_sock { /* User return codes for XDP prog type. * A valid XDP program must return one of these defined values. All other - * return codes are reserved for future use. Unknown return codes will result - * in packet drop. + * return codes are reserved for future use. Unknown return codes will + * result in packet drops and a warning via bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(). */ enum xdp_action { XDP_ABORTED = 0, diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c index 0848df2..adac4eb 100644 --- a/net/core/filter.c +++ b/net/core/filter.c @@ -3609,7 +3609,11 @@ static bool xdp_is_valid_access(int off, int size, void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(u32 act) { - WARN_ONCE(1, "Illegal XDP return value %u, expect packet loss\n", act); + const u32 act_max = XDP_REDIRECT; + + WARN_ONCE(1, "%s XDP return value %u, expect packet loss!\n", + act > act_max ? "Illegal" : "Driver unsupported", + act); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action);
Differ between illegal XDP action code and just driver unsupported one to provide better feedback when we throw a one-time warning here. Reason is that with 814abfabef3c ("xdp: add bpf_redirect helper function") not all drivers support the new XDP return code yet and thus they will fall into their 'default' case when checking for return codes after program return, which then triggers a bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action() stating that the return code is illegal, but from XDP perspective it's not. I decided not to place something like a XDP_ACT_MAX define into uapi i) given we don't have this either for all other program types, ii) future action codes could have further encoding there, which would render such define unsuitable and we wouldn't be able to rip it out again, and iii) we rarely add new action codes. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> --- include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++-- net/core/filter.c | 6 +++++- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)