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  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, 15 Jan 2021 16:55:54 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
CC:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing
 programs



On 1/15/21 3:34 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 8:53 AM, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:32 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/21 3:45 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:58 PM, Martin Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:35:43PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:57 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:19:47PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>>>>>>> index dd5aedee99e73..9bd47ad2b26f1 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
>>>>>>>> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>>>>>>>> @@ -734,6 +735,7 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>>>>>>       cgroup_free(tsk);
>>>>>>>>       task_numa_free(tsk, true);
>>>>>>>>       security_task_free(tsk);
>>>>>>>> +     bpf_task_storage_free(tsk);
>>>>>>>>       exit_creds(tsk);
>>>>>>> If exit_creds() is traced by a bpf and this bpf is doing
>>>>>>> bpf_task_storage_get(..., BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE),
>>>>>>> new task storage will be created after bpf_task_storage_free().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recalled there was an earlier discussion with KP and KP mentioned
>>>>>>> BPF_LSM will not be called with a task that is going away.
>>>>>>> It seems enabling bpf task storage in bpf tracing will break
>>>>>>> this assumption and needs to be addressed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For tracing programs, I think we will need an allow list where
>>>>>> task local storage can be used.
>>>>> Instead of whitelist, can refcount_inc_not_zero(&tsk->usage) be used?
>>>>
>>>> I think we can put refcount_inc_not_zero() in bpf_task_storage_get, like:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
>>>> index f654b56907b69..93d01b0a010e6 100644
>>>> --- i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
>>>> +++ w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
>>>> @@ -216,6 +216,9 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_task_storage_get, struct bpf_map *, map, struct task_struct *,
>>>>           * by an RCU read-side critical section.
>>>>           */
>>>>          if (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) {
>>>> +               if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&task->usage))
>>>> +                       return -EBUSY;
>>>> +
>>>>                  sdata = bpf_local_storage_update(
>>>>                          task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value,
>>>>                          BPF_NOEXIST);
>>>>
>>>> But where shall we add the refcount_dec()? IIUC, we cannot add it to
>>>> __put_task_struct().
>>>
>>> Maybe put_task_struct()?
>>
>> Yeah, something like, or if you find a more elegant alternative :)
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
>> @@ -107,13 +107,20 @@ extern void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t);
>>
>> static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
>> {
>> -       if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
>> +
>> +       if (rcu_access_pointer(t->bpf_storage)) {
>> +               if (refcount_sub_and_test(2, &t->usage))
>> +                       __put_task_struct(t);
>> +       } else if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
>>                 __put_task_struct(t);
>> }
>>
>> static inline void put_task_struct_many(struct task_struct *t, int nr)
>> {
>> -       if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr, &t->usage))
>> +       if (rcu_access_pointer(t->bpf_storage)) {
>> +               if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr + 1, &t->usage))
>> +                       __put_task_struct(t);
>> +       } else if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr, &t->usage))
>>                 __put_task_struct(t);
>> }
> 
> It is not ideal to leak bpf_storage here. How about we only add the
> following:
> 
> diff --git i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> index f654b56907b69..2811b9fc47233 100644
> --- i/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> +++ w/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> @@ -216,6 +216,10 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_task_storage_get, struct bpf_map *, map, struct task_struct *,
>           * by an RCU read-side critical section.
>           */
>          if (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) {
> +               /* the task_struct is being freed, fail over*/
> +               if (!refcount_read(&task->usage))
> +                       return -EBUSY;

This may not work? Even we check here and task->usage is not 0, it could 
still become 0 immediately after the above refcount_read, right?

> +
>                  sdata = bpf_local_storage_update(
>                          task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value,
>                          BPF_NOEXIST);
> 
>>
>>
>> I may be missing something but shouldn't bpf_storage be an __rcu
>> member like we have for sk_bpf_storage?
> 
> Good catch! I will fix this in v2.
> 
> Thanks,
> Song
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists