linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v9 tip 3/9] tracing: attach BPF programs to kprobes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:17:23 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v9 tip 3/9] tracing: attach BPF programs to kprobes

(2015/03/23 3:03), Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/22/15 3:06 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2015/03/22 1:02), Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On 3/21/15 5:14 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>> (2015/03/21 8:30), Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, kprobes are _not_ a stable kernel ABI, so bpf programs attached to
>>>>> kprobes must be recompiled for every kernel version and user must supply correct
>>>>> LINUX_VERSION_CODE in attr.kern_version during bpf_prog_load() call.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would you mean that the ABI of kprobe-based BPF programs? Kprobe API/ABIs
>>>> (register_kprobe() etc.) are stable, but the code who use kprobes certainly
>>>> depends the kernel binary by design. So, if you meant it, BPF programs must
>>>> be recompiled for every kernel binaries (including configuration changes,
>>>> not only its version).
>>>
>>> yes. I mainly meant that bpf+kprobe programs must be recompiled
>>> for every kernel binary.
>>
>> Hmm, if so, as we do in perf (and systemtap too), you'd better check
>> kernel's build-id instead of the kernel version when loading the
>> BPF program. It is safer than the KERNEL_VERSION_CODE.
> 
> It's not about safety. As I mentioned in cover letter:
> "version check is not used for safety, but for enforcing 'non-ABI-ness'"
> In other words it's like check-box next to 'terms and conditions'
> paragraph that the user has to click before he can continue.
> By providing 'kern_version' during loading the user accepts the fact
> that bpf+kprobe is not a stable ABI. Nothing more and nothing less.
> build-id cannot achieve that, because it cannot be checked from inside
> the kernel.

Ah, I see. Hmm, I think we'd better have such interface (kernel API).

> User space tools that will compile ktap/dtrace scripts into bpf might
> use build-id for their own purpose, but that's a different discussion.

Agreed.
I'd like to discuss it since kprobe event interface may also have same
issue.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/