linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_perf_prog_read

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:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:25:06 +0000
From:   Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
CC:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_perf_prog_read_branches()
 helper

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 06:02:58PM -0800, Daniel Xu wrote:
> On Thu Jan 23, 2020 at 4:49 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> [...]
> > >   * function eBPF program intends to call
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > index 19e793aa441a..24c51272a1f7 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > @@ -1028,6 +1028,35 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_prog_read_value_proto = {
> > >           .arg3_type      = ARG_CONST_SIZE,
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +BPF_CALL_3(bpf_perf_prog_read_branches, struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *, ctx,
> > > +	   void *, buf, u32, size)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct perf_branch_stack *br_stack = ctx->data->br_stack;
> > > +	u32 to_copy = 0, to_clear = size;
> > > +	int err = -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	if (unlikely(!br_stack))
> > > +		goto clear;
> > > +
> > > +	to_copy = min_t(u32, br_stack->nr * sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry), size);
> > > +	to_clear -= to_copy;
> > > +
> > > +	memcpy(buf, br_stack->entries, to_copy);
> > > +	err = to_copy;
> > > +clear:
> >
> > 
> > There appears to be agreement to clear the extra buffer on error but
> > what about
> > in the non-error case? I expect one usage pattern is to submit a fairly
> > large
> > buffer, large enough to handle worse case nr, in this case we end up
> > zero'ing
> > memory even in the succesful case. Can we skip the clear in this case?
> > Maybe
> > its not too important either way but seems unnecessary.
After some thoughts,  I also think clearing for non-error case
is not ideal.  DanielXu, is it the common use case to always
have a large enough buf size to capture the interested data?

> >
> > 
> > > +	memset(buf + to_copy, 0, to_clear);
> > > +	return err;
> > > +}
> >
> 
> Given Yonghong's suggestion of a flag argument, we need to allow users
> to pass in a null ptr while getting buffer size. So I'll change the `buf`
> argument to be ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL, which requires the buffer be
> initialized. We can skip zero'ing out altogether.
> 
> Although I think the end result is the same -- now the user has to zero it
> out. Unfortunately ARG_PTR_TO_UNINITIALIZED_MEM_OR_NULL is not
> implemented yet.
A "flags" arg can be added but not used to keep our option open in the
future.  Not sure it has to be implemented now though.
I would think whether there is an immediate usecase to learn
br_stack->nr through an extra bpf helper call in every event.

When there is a use case for learning br_stack->nr,
there may have multiple ways to do it also,
this "flags" arg, or another helper,
or br_stack->nr may be read directly with the help of BTF.