[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220518200358.GB29226@asgard.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 22:03:58 +0200
From: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] bpf_trace: bail out from
bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach when in compat
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 5/18/22 5:22 AM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >Since bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach doesn't support 32-bit kernels
> >for whatever reason, having it enabled for compat processes on 64-bit
> >kernels makes even less sense due to discrepances in the type sizes
> >that it does not handle.
>
> If I understand correctly, the reason is due to
> in libbpf we have
> struct bpf_link_create_opts {
> size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward compatibility
> */
> __u32 flags;
> union bpf_iter_link_info *iter_info;
> __u32 iter_info_len;
> __u32 target_btf_id;
> union {
> struct {
> __u64 bpf_cookie;
> } perf_event;
> struct {
> __u32 flags;
> __u32 cnt;
> const char **syms;
> const unsigned long *addrs;
> const __u64 *cookies;
> } kprobe_multi;
> };
> size_t :0;
> };
>
> Note that we have `const unsigned long *addrs;`
>
> If we have 32-bit user space application and 64bit kernel,
> and we will have userspace 32-bit pointers and kernel as
> 64bit pointers and current kernel doesn't handle 32-bit
> user pointer properly.
>
> Consider this may involve libbpf uapi change, maybe
> we should change "const unsigned long *addrs;" to
> "const __u64 *addrs;" considering we haven't freeze
> libbpf UAPI yet.
>
> Otherwise, we stick to current code with this patch,
> it will make it difficult to support 32-bit app with
> 64-bit kernel for kprobe_multi in the future due to
> uapi issues.
>
> WDYT?
As 32 bit arches are "unsupported" currently, the change would be more
a semantic one rather then practical; I don't mind having it here (basically,
the tools/* part of [1]), though (assuming it is still possible to get it
in 5.18).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6ef675aeeea442fa8fc168cd1cb4e4e474f65a3f.1652772731.git.esyr@redhat.com/
> >
> >Fixes: 0dcac272540613d4 ("bpf: Add multi kprobe link")
> >Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
> >---
> > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> >index 212faa4..2f83489 100644
> >--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> >+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> >@@ -2412,7 +2412,7 @@ int bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
> > int err;
> > /* no support for 32bit archs yet */
> >- if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
> >+ if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *) || in_compat_syscall())
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists