linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf, cgroup: Don't populate prog_attach

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]

Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:32:02 +0800
From:   Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        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,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>,
        Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf, cgroup: Don't populate
 prog_attach_flags array when effective query



On 2022/9/17 8:03, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 9/14/22 9:17 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>>
>> Attach flags is only valid for attached progs of this layer cgroup,
>> but not for effective progs. For querying with EFFECTIVE flags,
>> exporting attach flags does not make sense. so we don't need to
>> populate prog_attach_flags array when effective query.
> 
> prog_attach_flags has been added to 6.0 which is in rc5.  It is still 
> doable (and cleaner) to reject prog_attach_flags when it is an 
> effective_query.  This should be done regardless of 'type == 
> BPF_LSM_CGROUP' or not.  Something like:
> 
> if (effective_query && prog_attach_flags)
>      return -EINVAL;
> 
> Otherwise, the whole prog_attach_flags needs to be set to 0 during 
> effective_query.  Please target the change to the bpf tree instead of 
> bpf-next such that this uapi bit can be fixed before 6.0.
> 

Okay, will handle in next version.

> Also, the effective_query issue is not limited to the prog_attach_flags? 
> For the older uattr->query.attach_flags, it should be set to 0 also when 
> it is an effective_query, right?

For output uattr->query.attach_flags, we certainly don't need to copy it 
to userspace when effective query. Since we do not utilize 
uattr->query.attach_flags in the cgroup query function, should we need 
to take it as input and reject when it is non-zero in effective query? 
Something like:
if (effective_query && (prog_attach_flags || attr->query.attach_flags))

For both output and input scenarios, we are faced with the problem that 
there is a ambiguity in attach_flags being 0. When we do not copy to the 
userspace, libbpf will set it to 0 by default, and 0 can mean NONE flag 
attach, or no attach prog. The same is true for input scenarios.

So should we need to define NONE attach flag and redefine the others? 
Such as follow:
#define BPF_F_ALLOW_NONE    	(1U << 0)
#define BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE    (1U << 1)
#define BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI       (1U << 2)
#define BPF_F_REPLACE           (1U << 3)

And then attach flags being 0 certainly means no attach any prog.