linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: reject blacklisted symbols in kprobe

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: <024f3c9c-98ee-6a8f-e188-01b459fb4a96@meta.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 May 2023 10:11:53 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Ze Gao <zegao@...cent.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: reject blacklisted symbols in kprobe_multi to avoid
 recursive trap



On 5/12/23 9:17 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 07:29:02 -0700
> Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com> wrote:
> 
>> A fprobe_blacklist might make sense indeed as fprobe and kprobe are
>> quite different... Thanks for working on this.
> 
> Hmm, I think I see the problem:
> 
> fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
>     kprobe_busy_begin() {
>        preempt_disable() {
>           preempt_count_add() {  <-- trace
>              fprobe_kprobe_handler() {
> 		[ wash, rinse, repeat, CRASH!!! ]
> 
> Either the kprobe_busy_begin() needs to use preempt_disable_notrace()
> versions, or fprobe_kprobe_handle() needs a
> ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() call.

Currently, in verifier we have:

BTF_SET_START(btf_id_deny)
BTF_ID_UNUSED
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
BTF_ID(func, migrate_disable)
BTF_ID(func, migrate_enable)
#endif
#if !defined CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU && !defined CONFIG_TINY_RCU
BTF_ID(func, rcu_read_unlock_strict)
#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_PREEMPT_TOGGLE)
BTF_ID(func, preempt_count_add)
BTF_ID(func, preempt_count_sub)
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
BTF_ID(func, __rcu_read_lock)
BTF_ID(func, __rcu_read_unlock)
#endif
BTF_SET_END(btf_id_deny)

         ...
         } else if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING &&
                    btf_id_set_contains(&btf_id_deny, btf_id)) {
                 return -EINVAL;
         }

Since we do not have a explicit deny list available to user space,
the above checking will prevent to trace a few functions for
tracing prog (fentry, fexit, fmod_ret).

For fprobe_kprobe case, if we can construct a user visible deny
list which will be the best. Otherwise, we can add a
btf_id_deny_fprobe btf set which should work too.

> 
> -- Steve