linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Upgrade bpf

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: <deb77161-3091-a134-4b82-78fef06efe85@linux.dev>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 10:36:20 -0800
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To:     Ji Rongfeng <SikoJobs@...look.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
        andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Upgrade bpf_{g,s}etsockopt return values

On 12/2/22 9:39 AM, Ji Rongfeng wrote:
> Returning -EINVAL almost all the time when error occurs is not very
> helpful for the bpf prog to figure out what is wrong. This patch
> upgrades some return values so that they will be much more helpful.
> 
> * return -ENOPROTOOPT when optname is unsupported
> 
>    The same as {g,s}etsockopt() syscall does. Before this patch,
>    bpf_setsockopt(TCP_SAVED_SYN) already returns -ENOPROTOOPT, which
>    may confuse the user, as -EINVAL is returned on other unsupported
>    optnames. This patch also rejects TCP_SAVED_SYN right in
>    sol_tcp_sockopt() when getopt is false, since do_tcp_setsockopt()
>    is just the executor and it's not its duty to discover such error
>    in bpf. We should maintain a precise allowlist to control whether
>    an optname is supported and allowed to enter the executor or not.
>    Functions like do_tcp_setsockopt(), their behaviour are not fully
>    controllable by bpf. Imagine we let an optname pass, expecting
>    -ENOPROTOOPT will be returned, but someday that optname is
>    actually processed and unfortunately causes deadlock when calling
>    from bpf. Thus, precise access control is essential.

Please leave the current -EINVAL to distinguish between optnames rejected by bpf 
and optnames rejected by the do_*_{get,set}sockopt().

> 
> * return -EOPNOTSUPP on level-related errors
> 
>    In do_ip_getsockopt(), -EOPNOTSUPP will be returned if level !=
>    SOL_IP. In ipv6_getsockopt(), -ENOPROTOOPT will be returned if
>    level != SOL_IPV6. To be distinguishable, the former is chosen.

I would leave this one as is also.  Are you sure the do_ip_*sockopt cannot 
handle sk_family == AF_INET6?  afaict, bpf is rejecting those optnames instead.

> 
> * return -EBADFD when sk is not a full socket
> 
>    -EPERM or -EBUSY was an option, but in many cases one of them
>    will be returned, especially under level SOL_TCP. -EBADFD is the
>    better choice, since it is hardly returned in all cases. The bpf
>    prog will be able to recognize it and decide what to do next.

This one makes sense and is useful.