linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override

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]

Message-ID: <20171110171428.hrw5cpxy4sgzf7mn@destiny>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:14:29 -0500
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:34:59AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -551,6 +578,10 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto *kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func
> >  		return &bpf_get_stackid_proto;
> >  	case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read_value:
> >  		return &bpf_perf_event_read_value_proto;
> > +	case BPF_FUNC_override_return:
> > +		pr_warn_ratelimited("%s[%d] is installing a program with bpf_override_return helper that may cause unexpected behavior!",
> > +				    current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
> > +		return &bpf_override_return_proto;
> 
> So if this new functionality is used we'll always print this into the syslog?
> 
> The warning is also a bit passive aggressive about informing the user: what 
> unexpected behavior can happen, what is the worst case?
> 

It's modeled after the other warnings bpf will spit out, but with this feature
you are skipping a function and instead returning some arbitrary value, so
anything could go wrong if you mess something up.  For instance I screwed up my
initial test case and made every IO submitted return an error instead of just on
the one file system I was attempting to test, so all sorts of hilarity ensued.
Thanks,

Josef