[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVgSXuRG_ZPXQt55ze7pHOCezU4Ev1KFUww6Yqk4JACgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:38:28 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/6] net: filter: add "load 64-bit immediate"
eBPF instruction
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
>> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:00:53 -0700
>>
>>> add BPF_LD_IMM64 instruction to load 64-bit immediate value into a register.
>>
>> I think you need to rethink this.
>>
>> I understand that you want to be able to compile arbitrary C code into
>> eBPF, but you have to restrict strongly what data the eBPF code can get
>> to.
>
> I believe verifier already does restrict it. I don't see any holes in
> the architecture. I'm probably not explaining it clearly though :(
>
>> Arbitrary pointer loads is asking for trouble.
>
> Of course.
> There is no arbitrary pointer from user space.
> Verifier checks all pointers.
> I guess this commit log description is confusing.
> It says:
> BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, const_imm_map_ptr)
> that's what appears in the program _after_ it goes through verifier.
> User space cannot pass a pointer into the kernel.
If you don't intend for userspace to load a program that contains this
instruction, then why does it need to be an instruction that the
verifier rewrites? Why not have an instruction "load immediate
relocated pointer" that contains a reference to a relocation table and
have the JIT do it? That might be easier to understand than having
the verifier do it, and it'll avoid committing to ABIs before we need
them.
--Andy
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists