linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Deprecate "data" member of bpf_lpm_trie

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:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:01:15 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Deprecate "data" member of bpf_lpm_trie_key

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 1:12 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:50:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
> > > > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
> > > > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > > > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
> > > > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
> > > > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
> > > > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
> > >
> > > The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
> > > struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
> > > when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
> > > systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).
> >
> > I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
> > cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
> > cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
> > They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.
>
> Right -- I'm proposing not changing bpf_lpm_trie_key. I'm proposing
> _adding_ bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for new users who will be using modern
> compiler options (i.e. where "data[0]" is nonsense).
>
> > Can we do just
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
> >   __u32   prefixlen;
> >   __u8    data[];
> > };
> > and use it in the kernel?
>
> Yeah, I can do that if that's preferred, but it leaves userspace hanging
> when they eventually trip over this in their code when they enable
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 too.
>
> > What is the disadvantage?
>
> It seemed better to give a working example of how to migrate this code.

I understand and agree with intent, but I'm still missing
how you're going to achieve this migration.
bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 doesn't provide a migration path to cilium progs
and pretty much all bpf progs that use LPM map.
Sure, one can change the user space part, like you did in test_lpm_map.c,
but it doesn't address the full scope.
imo half way is worse than not doing it.