linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: invalidate unused part of bpf_prog

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: <CAHk-=wh1mO5HdrOMTq68WHM51-=jdmQS=KipVYxS+5u3uRc5rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:28:20 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: invalidate unused part of bpf_prog_pack

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:41 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> The extra logic I had in the original patch was to erase the memory
> when a BPF program is freed. In this case, the memory will be
> returned to the bpf_prog_pack, and stays as RO+X. Actually, I
> am not quite sure whether we need this logic. If not, we only need
> the much simpler version.

Oh, I think it would be good to do at free time too.

I just would want that to use the same function we already have for
the allocation-time thing, instead of introducing completely new
infrastructure. That was what looked very odd to me.

Now, the _smallest_ patch would likely be to just save away that
'bpf_fill_ill_insns' function pointer in the 'struct bpf_prog_pack'
thing.

It's admittedly kind of silly to do, but it matches that whole silly
"let's pass around a function pointer to a fixed function" model at
allocation time.

I say that's silly, because it's a fixed architecture function and we
could just call it directly. The only valid function there is
jit_fill_hole(), and the only reason it uses that function pointer
seems to be that it's never been exposed as a real function.

So passing it along as a function seems to be _purely_ for the silly
reason that people haven't agreed on a name, and different
architectures use different names (ie power uses
'bpf_jit_fill_ill_insns()', RISC-V calls it 'bpf_fill_ill_insns()',
and everybody else seems to use 'jit_fill_hole'.

I don't know why that decision was made. It looks like a bad one to
me, honestly.

Why not just agree on a name - I suggest 'bpf_jit_fill_hole()' - and
just get rid of that stupid 'bpf_jit_fill_hole_t' type name that only
exists because of this thing?

The bpf headers seem to literally have agreed on a name for that
function -type- only in order to be able to disagree on the name of
the function -name-, and then pass it along as a function pointer
argument instead of just calling it directly.

Very counter-productive.

                 Linus