| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <96093da6-9e0f-5d6b-59a4-91a744ad64cb@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:07:48 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: Remove struct bpf_verifier_env argument from
print_bpf_insn
On 03/22/2018 04:57 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 03:35:42PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>> 2018-03-22 14:32 UTC+0100 ~ Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:34:18AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2018 07:37 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:25:33PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>>>>>> 2018-03-21 16:02 UTC+0100 ~ Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
>>>>>>> We use print_bpf_insn in user space (bpftool and soon perf),
>>>>>>> so it'd be nice to keep it generic and strip it off the kernel
>>>>>>> struct bpf_verifier_env argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This argument can be safely removed, because its users can
>>>>>>> use the struct bpf_insn_cbs::private_data to pass it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> kernel/bpf/disasm.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>>>>>> kernel/bpf/disasm.h | 5 +----
>>>>>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++---
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>>> index c6eff108aa99..9f27d3fa7259 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>>> @@ -202,8 +202,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_verifier_log_write);
>>>>>>> * generic for symbol export. The function was renamed, but not the calls in
>>>>>>> * the verifier to avoid complicating backports. Hence the alias below.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> -static __printf(2, 3) void verbose(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>>>>> - const char *fmt, ...)
>>>>>>> +static __printf(2, 3) void verbose(void *private_data, const char *fmt, ...)
>>>>>>> __attribute__((alias("bpf_verifier_log_write")));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as a note, verbose() will be aliased to a function whose prototype
>>>>>> differs (bpf_verifier_log_write() still expects a struct
>>>>>> bpf_verifier_env as its first argument). I am not so familiar with
>>>>>> function aliases, could this change be a concern?
>>>>>
>>>>> yea, but as it was pointer for pointer switch I did not
>>>>> see any problem with that.. I'll check more
>>>>
>>>> Ok, holding off for now until we have clarification. Other option could also
>>>> be to make it void *private_data everywhere and for the kernel writer then
>>>> do struct bpf_verifier_env *env = private_data.
>>>
>>> can't find much info about the alias behaviour for this
>>> case.. so how about having separate function for the
>>> print_cb like below.. I still need to test it
>>
>> I have nothing against splitting the function. This is a solution I
>> considered for verbose() and bpf_verifier_log_write(), before switching
>> to function alias (on Daniel's suggestion) because the code would be
>> identical for the two separate functions at that time. But with your
>> change they would not have the same signature anymore, so it sounds
>> reasonable. Just a note below...
>>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> jirka
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/disasm.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>> kernel/bpf/disasm.h | 5 +----
>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index e9f7c20691c1..69bf7590877c 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -168,23 +168,16 @@ struct bpf_call_arg_meta {
>>>
>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(bpf_verifier_lock);
>>>
>>> -/* log_level controls verbosity level of eBPF verifier.
>>> - * bpf_verifier_log_write() is used to dump the verification trace to the log,
>>> - * so the user can figure out what's wrong with the program
>>> - */
>>> -__printf(2, 3) void bpf_verifier_log_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>> - const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +static void log_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const char *fmt,
>>> + va_list args)
>>> {
>>> struct bpf_verifer_log *log = &env->log;
>>> unsigned int n;
>>> - va_list args;
>>>
>>> if (!log->level || !log->ubuf || bpf_verifier_log_full(log))
>>> return;
>>>
>>> - va_start(args, fmt);
>>> n = vscnprintf(log->kbuf, BPF_VERIFIER_TMP_LOG_SIZE, fmt, args);
>>> - va_end(args);
>>>
>>> WARN_ONCE(n >= BPF_VERIFIER_TMP_LOG_SIZE - 1,
>>> "verifier log line truncated - local buffer too short\n");
>>> @@ -197,7 +190,32 @@ __printf(2, 3) void bpf_verifier_log_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>> else
>>> log->ubuf = NULL;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +/* log_level controls verbosity level of eBPF verifier.
>>> + * bpf_verifier_log_write() is used to dump the verification trace to the log,
>>> + * so the user can figure out what's wrong with the program
>>> + */
>>> +__printf(2, 3) void bpf_verifier_log_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>> + const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +{
>>> + va_list args;
>>> +
>>> + va_start(args, fmt);
>>> + log_write(env, fmt, args);
>>> + va_end(args);
>>> +}
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_verifier_log_write);
>>> +
>>> +__printf(2, 3) static void print_ins(void *private_data,
>>> + const char *fmt, ...)
>>
>> Unless I am mistaken, you could just call this one "verbose()" and
>> simply remove the function alias?
>
> right you are ;-) I haven't realized that struct bpf_verifier_env *env
> will cleanly cast to void *
>
> new version attached.. I'll make some tests and send full patch
When you do so, please make sure to send a full fresh series with the two
patches and also cover letter included, otherwise it's more fragile wrt
potentially applying the wrong patch from one of the replies. :-)
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists