linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/12] bpf: selftests: Fix bpf_session

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:29:59 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, shuah@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, 
	eddyz87@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net, quentin@...valent.com, 
	alan.maguire@...cle.com, acme@...nel.org, mykolal@...com, 
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, 
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, 
	haoluo@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/12] bpf: selftests: Fix bpf_session_cookie()
 kfunc prototype

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:08 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 09:58:23AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 5:43 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:25:53PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 6:04 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 03:16:02PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > > > > The prototype defined in bpf_kfuncs.h was not in line with how the
> > > > > > actual kfunc was defined. This causes compilation errors when kfunc
> > > > > > prototypes are generated from BTF.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h                        | 2 +-
> > > > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> > > > > > index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644
> > > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> > > > > > @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr,
> > > > > >                                     struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak;
> > > > > > -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
> > > > > > +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
> > > > >
> > > > > the original intent was to expose long instead of __u64 :-\
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cookies internally are always u64 (8 byte values). Marking them
> > > > internally in the kernel as long could lead to problems on 32-bit
> > > > architectures, potentially (it still needs to be 64-bit value
> > > > according to BPF contract, but we'll allocate only 4 bytes for them).
> > > >
> > > > It seems better and safer to be explicit with __u64/u64 for cookies everywhere.
> > >
> > > hum, I based that on what we did for kprobe session,
> > > but I guess it makes sense just for bpf side:
> >
> > yep, exactly, long is 64-bit only for BPF "architecture", but
> > internally it will be 4 bytes for 32-bit architectures, which will
> > potentially lead to problems. With recent kfunc vmlinux.h generation,
> > it's probably better to stick to explicitly sized types.
>
> hm, it already got in 2b8dd87332cd, revert needs more changes in selftests
> I'll send formal patch with fix below

Yeah, I was a bit late to the party. But I replied on the original
thread as well, I think we should use __u64 (or unsigned long long if
we worry about __u64 typedef, but I think at least for vmlinux.h it
doesn't matter).

And thanks for working on a fix!

>
> jirka
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index 4b3fda456299..cd098846e251 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -3530,7 +3530,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc bool bpf_session_is_return(void)
>         return session_ctx->is_return;
>  }
>
> -__bpf_kfunc long *bpf_session_cookie(void)
> +__bpf_kfunc __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void)
>  {
>         struct bpf_session_run_ctx *session_ctx;
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> index be91a6919315..3b6675ab4086 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_kfuncs.h
> @@ -77,5 +77,5 @@ extern int bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(struct bpf_dynptr *data_ptr,
>                                       struct bpf_key *trusted_keyring) __ksym;
>
>  extern bool bpf_session_is_return(void) __ksym __weak;
> -extern long *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
> +extern __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void) __ksym __weak;
>  #endif
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> index d49070803e22..0835b5edf685 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi_session_cookie.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(trigger)
>
>  static int check_cookie(__u64 val, __u64 *result)
>  {
> -       long *cookie;
> +       __u64 *cookie;
>
>         if (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32 != pid)
>                 return 1;