linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/8] bpf: Enable cpumasks to be queried and used as kptrs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230120054823.bldnkx5tl3jxejm3@MacBook-Pro-6.local.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:48:23 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...a.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/8] bpf: Enable cpumasks to be queried and used
 as kptrs

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:58:29PM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> silently check for and ignore these cases at runtime. When we have e.g.
> per-argument kfunc flags, it might be helpful to add another KF_CPU-type
> flag that specifies that the verifier should validate that it's a valid
> CPU.

...

> +void bpf_cpumask_set_cpu(u32 cpu, struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> +{
> +	if (!cpu_valid(cpu))
> +		return;
> +
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, (struct cpumask *)cpumask);
> +}

...

> +void bpf_cpumask_clear_cpu(u32 cpu, struct bpf_cpumask *cpumask)
> +{
> +	if (!cpu_valid(cpu))
> +		return;

I don't think we'll be able to get rid of this with KF_CPU or special suffix.
The argument might be a variable and not a constant at the verification time.
We would have to allow passing unknown vars otherwise the UX will be too restrictive,
so this run-time check would have to stay.