| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8fe67e829d95477d884131641ca0961d@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 23:17:26 +0000
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
CC: Joe Burton <jevburton.kernel@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] libbpf: Add bpf_obj_get_opts()
> From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 1:15 AM
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:12 PM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 1:09 AM
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:02 PM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 12:48 AM
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 3:44 PM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 12:38 AM
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 3:30 PM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 5:57 PM
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 1:02 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Stanislav Fomichev [mailto:sdf@...gle.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 10:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:40 PM Joe Burton
> > > > > > > <jevburton.kernel@...il.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Add an extensible variant of bpf_obj_get() capable of setting
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > `file_flags` parameter.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This parameter is needed to enable unprivileged access to
> BPF
> > > > > maps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Without a method like this, users must manually make the
> > > syscall.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Burton <jevburton@...gle.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For context:
> > > > > > > > > > > We've found this out while we were trying to add support for
> > > unpriv
> > > > > > > > > > > processes to open pinned r-x maps.
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this deserves a test as well? Not sure.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav, Joe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I noticed now this patch. I'm doing a broader work to add opts
> > > > > > > > > > to bpf_*_get_fd_by_id(). I also adjusted permissions of bpftool
> > > > > > > > > > depending on the operation type (e.g. show, dump:
> > > BPF_F_RDONLY).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Will send it soon (I'm trying to solve an issue with the CI, where
> > > > > > > > > > libbfd is not available in the VM doing actual tests).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is something like this patch included in your series as well? Can
> you
> > > > > > > > > use this new interface or do you need something different?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is very similar. Except that I called it bpf_get_fd_opts, as it
> > > > > > > > is shared with the bpf_*_get_fd_by_id() functions. The member
> > > > > > > > name is just flags, plus an extra u32 for alignment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can bikeshed the naming, but we've been using existing
> conventions
> > > > > > > where opts fields match syscall fields, that seems like a sensible
> > > > > > > thing to do?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only problem is that bpf_*_get_fd_by_id() functions would
> > > > > > set the open_flags member of bpf_attr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flags would be good for both, even if not exact. Believe me,
> > > > > > duplicating the opts would just create more confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wait, that's completely different, right? We are talking here about
> > > > > BPF_OBJ_GET (which has related BPF_OBJ_PIN).
> > > > > Your GET_XXX_BY_ID are different so you'll still have to have another
> > > > > wrapper with opts?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they have different wrappers, just accept the same opts as
> > > > obj_get(). From bpftool subcommands you want to set the correct
> > > > permission, and propagate it uniformly to bpf_*_get_fd_by_id()
> > > > or obj_get(). See map_parse_fds().
> > >
> > > I don't think they are accepting the same opts.
> > >
> > > For our case, we care about:
> > >
> > > struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_OBJ_* commands */
> > > __aligned_u64 pathname;
> > > __u32 bpf_fd;
> > > __u32 file_flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > > For your case, you care about:
> > >
> > > struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_*_GET_*_ID */
> > > union {
> > > __u32 start_id;
> > > __u32 prog_id;
> > > __u32 map_id;
> > > __u32 btf_id;
> > > __u32 link_id;
> > > };
> > > __u32 next_id;
> > > __u32 open_flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > > So your new _opts libbpf routine should be independent of what Joe is
> > > doing here.
> >
> > It is. Just I use the same opts to set file_flags or open_flags.
>
> That seems confusing. Let's have separate calls for separate syscall
> commands as we do already?
Can you wait one day, I send what I have, so that we see
everything together?
Thanks
Roberto
> > Roberto
> >
> > > > Roberto
> > > >
> > > > > > > > It needs to be shared, as there are functions in bpftool calling
> > > > > > > > both. Since the meaning of flags is the same, seems ok sharing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I guess there are no objections to the current patch? If it gets
> > > > > > > accepted, you should be able to drop some of your code and use this
> > > > > > > new bpf_obj_get_opts..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you use a name good also for bpf_*_get_fd_by_id() and flags
> > > > > > as structure member name, that would be ok.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Roberto
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 9 +++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 5eb0df90eb2b..5acb0e8bd13c 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -578,12 +578,22 @@ int bpf_obj_pin(int fd, const char
> > > > > > > *pathname)
> > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > int bpf_obj_get(const char *pathname)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_obj_get_opts, opts);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + return bpf_obj_get_opts(pathname, &opts);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +int bpf_obj_get_opts(const char *pathname, const struct
> > > > > > > > > bpf_obj_get_opts
> > > > > > > > > > > *opts)
> > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > union bpf_attr attr;
> > > > > > > > > > > > int fd;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_obj_get_opts))
> > > > > > > > > > > > + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
> > > > > > > > > > > > attr.pathname = ptr_to_u64((void *)pathname);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + attr.file_flags = OPTS_GET(opts, file_flags, 0);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > fd = sys_bpf_fd(BPF_OBJ_GET, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> > > > > > > > > > > > return libbpf_err_errno(fd);
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 88a7cc4bd76f..f31b493b5f9a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -270,8 +270,17 @@ LIBBPF_API int
> > > bpf_map_update_batch(int
> > > > > fd,
> > > > > > > > > const
> > > > > > > > > > > void *keys, const void *values
> > > > > > > > > > > > __u32 *count,
> > > > > > > > > > > > const struct bpf_map_batch_opts *opts);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +struct bpf_obj_get_opts {
> > > > > > > > > > > > + size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > + __u32 file_flags;
> > > > > > > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > > > > > > +#define bpf_obj_get_opts__last_field file_flags
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > LIBBPF_API int bpf_obj_pin(int fd, const char *pathname);
> > > > > > > > > > > > LIBBPF_API int bpf_obj_get(const char *pathname);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +LIBBPF_API int bpf_obj_get_opts(const char *pathname,
> > > > > > > > > > > > + const struct bpf_obj_get_opts *opts);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_prog_attach_opts {
> > > > > > > > > > > > size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 0625adb9e888..119e6e1ea7f1 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ LIBBPF_0.8.0 {
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > LIBBPF_1.0.0 {
> > > > > > > > > > > > global:
> > > > > > > > > > > > + bpf_obj_get_opts;
> > > > > > > > > > > > bpf_prog_query_opts;
> > > > > > > > > > > > bpf_program__attach_ksyscall;
> > > > > > > > > > > > btf__add_enum64;
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.37.0.170.g444d1eabd0-goog
> > > > > > > > > > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists