[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABRcYmKBAssv7YKqFnw5dOBA9NTCyNJ5DnffkiP6=NUjC3+USg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:03:45 +0100
From: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@...il.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Allow bpf_d_path in perf_event_mmap
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:06 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > FILE *vm_file = vma->vm_file; /* no checking is needed, vma from
> > > > > parameter which is not NULL */
> > > > > if (vm_file)
> > > > > bpf_d_path(&vm_file->f_path, path, sizeof(path));
> > > >
> > > > That should work.
> > > > The verifier can achieve that by marking certain fields as PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL
> > > > instead of PTR_TO_BTF_ID while walking such pointers.
> > > > And then disallow pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL until it
> > > > goes through 'if (Rx == NULL)' check inside the program and gets converted to
> > > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
> > > > Initially we can hard code such fields via BTF_ID(struct, file) macro.'
> > > > So any pointer that results into a 'struct file' pointer will be
> > > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL.
Right, this is what I had in mind originally. But I was afraid this
could maybe prevent some existing programs from loading on newer
kernels ? Not sure if that's an issue.
> > The helper can check that it's [0, few_pages] and declare it's bad.
>
> That's basically what happens with direct memory reads, so I guess it
> would be fine.
>
> > I guess we can do that and only do what I proposed for "more than a page"
> > math on the pointer. Or even disallow "add more than a page offset to
> > PTR_TO_BTF_ID"
> > for now, since it will cover 99% of the cases.
Otherwise this sounds like a straightforward solution, yes :)
Especially if this is how direct memory accesses already work.
I'd be happy to look into this when I get some slack time. ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists