linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 linux-trace 4/8] samples: bpf: simple tracing example in C

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150128204440.GQ7220@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:44:40 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 linux-trace 4/8] samples: bpf: simple tracing example
 in C

Em Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:42:29AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Em Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 01:24:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:06:09PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> >> > +   if (bpf_memcmp(dev->name, devname, 2) == 0)

> >> I'm only starting to look at all this, so bear with me... But why do we
> >> need to have it as "bpf_memcmp"? Can't we simply use it as "memcmp" and
> >> have it use the right function?

> >> Less typing, perhaps we would need to have a:

> >> #define memcmp bpf_memcmp(s1, s2, n) bpf_memcmp(s1, s2, n)

> > Argh, like this:

> > #define memcmp(s1, s2, n) bpf_memcmp(s1, s2, n)

> >> in bpf_helpers.h to have it work?

> yes, that will work just fine.
> Since it's an example I made it explicit that bpf_memcmp()
> has memcmp() semantics, but little bit different:
> int bpf_memcmp(void *unsafe_ptr, void *safe_ptr, int size)

Not knowing about the safe/unsafe pointers (at this point in my
conceptual eBPF learning process), I would think that it would be easier
to understand if it would reuse another well known idiom:

#define memcmp_from_user(kernel, user, n) bpf_memcmp(user, kernel, n)

That would be similar to:

 copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)

But here, again bear with me, I'm just brainstorming, as from just
looking at:

  bpf_memcmp(a, b, n)

I don't reuse anything I've learned before trying to understand eBPF,
not I see any well known marker (__user) that would help me understand
that that pointer needs special treatment/belongs to a different "domain".

> meaning that one of the pointers can point anywhere and
> the function will be doing probe_kernel_read() underneath
> similar to bpf_fetch_*() helpers.

> If it was plain memcmp() it would give a wrong impression
> that vanilla memcmp() can be used.

Since that is not the case, I agree that the 'memcmp' semantic can't be
used, as the two pointers are not on the same "domain", so to say.

> In general the programs cannot use any library functions
> outside of helpers defined in uapi/linux/bpf.h
> 
> bpf_fetch_*() helpers are also explicit in examples.
> If one need to do a lot of pointer walking, then macro like
> #define D(P) ((typeof(P))bpf_fetch_ptr(&P))
> would be easier to use: p = D(D(skb->dev)->ifalias)
> multiple pointer derefs would look more natural...

And if possible, i.e. if the eBPF compiler would take care of that
somehow, would indeed be preferred as it looks more natural :-)

- Arnaldo
--
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/