From 132328e8e85174ea788faf8f627c33258c88fbad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Florian Westphal Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:14:45 +0200 Subject: bpf: netfilter: Add BPF_NETFILTER bpf_attach_type Andrii Nakryiko writes: And we currently don't have an attach type for NETLINK BPF link. Thankfully it's not too late to add it. I see that link_create() in kernel/bpf/syscall.c just bypasses attach_type check. We shouldn't have done that. Instead we need to add BPF_NETLINK attach type to enum bpf_attach_type. And wire all that properly throughout the kernel and libbpf itself. This adds BPF_NETFILTER and uses it. This breaks uabi but this wasn't in any non-rc release yet, so it should be fine. v2: check link_attack prog type in link_create too Fixes: 84601d6ee68a ("bpf: add bpf_link support for BPF_NETFILTER programs") Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZ69YgrQW7DHCJUT_X+GqMq_ZQQPBwopaJJVGFD5=d5Vg@mail.gmail.com/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230605131445.32016-1-fw@strlen.de --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 14f39c1e573e..0c21d0d8efe4 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -2433,6 +2433,10 @@ bpf_prog_load_check_attach(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, default: return -EINVAL; } + case BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER: + if (expected_attach_type == BPF_NETFILTER) + return 0; + return -EINVAL; case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL: case BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT: if (expected_attach_type) @@ -4590,7 +4594,12 @@ static int link_create(union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr) switch (prog->type) { case BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT: + break; case BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER: + if (attr->link_create.attach_type != BPF_NETFILTER) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } break; case BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT: case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT: -- cgit v1.2.3