| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6511ce2a-1c7d-497c-aeb6-d4f0b17271ed@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 23:09:53 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@...il.com>, Zheao Li <me@...jusaka.me>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau
<martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Add bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog
method to output failure logs to kernel
On 7/24/24 11:05 PM, Leon Hwang wrote:
>
> On 25/7/24 13:54, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 7/24/24 10:15 PM, Zheao Li wrote:
>>> This is a v2 patch, previous Link:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240724152521.20546-1-me@manjusaka.me/T/#u
>>>
>>> Compare with v1:
>>>
>>> 1. Format the code style and signed-off field
>>> 2. Use a shorter name bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog instead of
>>> original name bpf_check_attach_target_with_kernel_log
>>>
>>> When attaching a freplace hook, failures can occur,
>>> but currently, no output is provided to help developers diagnose the
>>> root cause.
>>>
>>> This commit adds a new method, bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog,
>>> which outputs the verifier log to the kernel.
>>> Developers can then use dmesg to obtain more detailed information
>>> about the failure.
>>>
>>> For an example of eBPF code,
>>> Link:
>>> https://github.com/Asphaltt/learn-by-example/blob/main/ebpf/freplace/main.go
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zheao Li <me@...jusaka.me>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 5 +++++
>>> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++--
>>> kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 6 +++---
>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>> index 5cea15c81b8a..8eddba62c194 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>> @@ -848,6 +848,11 @@ static inline void bpf_trampoline_unpack_key(u64
>>> key, u32 *obj_id, u32 *btf_id)
>>> *btf_id = key & 0x7FFFFFFF;
>>> }
>>> +int bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> + const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
>>> + u32 btf_id,
>>> + struct bpf_attach_target_info *tgt_info);
>> format issue in the above. Same code alignment is needed for arguments
>> in different lines.
>>
>>> +
>>> int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>> const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> index 869265852d51..bf826fcc8cf4 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> @@ -3464,8 +3464,9 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct
>>> bpf_prog *prog,
>>> */
>>> struct bpf_attach_target_info tgt_info = {};
>>> - err = bpf_check_attach_target(NULL, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id,
>>> - &tgt_info);
>>> + err = bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog(prog, NULL,
>>> + prog->aux->attach_btf_id,
>>> + &tgt_info);
>> code alignment issue here as well.
>> Also, the argument should be 'prog, tgt_prog, btf_id, &tgt_info', right?
>>
>>> if (err)
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>> index f8302a5ca400..8862adaa7302 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
>>> @@ -699,9 +699,9 @@ int bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim(struct
>>> bpf_prog *prog,
>>> u64 key;
>>> int err;
>>> - err = bpf_check_attach_target(NULL, prog, NULL,
>>> - prog->aux->attach_btf_id,
>>> - &tgt_info);
>>> + err = bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog(prog, NULL,
>>> + prog->aux->attach_btf_id,
>>> + &tgt_info);
>> code alignment issue here
>>
>>> if (err)
>>> return err;
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index 1f5302fb0957..4873b72f5a9a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -21643,6 +21643,25 @@ static int
>>> check_non_sleepable_error_inject(u32 btf_id)
>>> return btf_id_set_contains(&btf_non_sleepable_error_inject,
>>> btf_id);
>>> }
>>> +int bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> + const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
>>> + u32 btf_id,
>>> + struct bpf_attach_target_info *tgt_info);
>> code alignment issue here.
>>
>>> +{
>>> + struct bpf_verifier_log *log;
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + log = kzalloc(sizeof(*log), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
>> __GFP_NOWARN is unnecessary here.
>>
>>> + if (!log) {
>>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>>> + return err;
>>> + }
>>> + log->level = BPF_LOG_KERNEL;
>>> + err = bpf_check_attach_target(log, prog, tgt_prog, btf_id,
>>> tgt_info);
>>> + kfree(log);
>>> + return err;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>> const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
>> More importantly, Andrii has implemented retsnoop, which intends to locate
>> precise location in the kernel where err happens. The link is
>> https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
>>
>> Maybe you want to take a look and see whether it can resolve your issue.
>> We should really avoid putting more stuff in dmesg whenever possible.
>>
> retsnoop is really cool.
>
> However, when something wrong in bpf_check_attach_target(), retsnoop
> only gets its return value -EINVAL, without any bpf_log() in it. It's
> hard to figure out the reason why bpf_check_attach_target() returns -EINVAL.
It should have line number like below in https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
|$ sudo ./retsnoop -e '*sys_bpf' -a ':kernel/bpf/*.c' Receiving data...
20:19:36.372607 -> 20:19:36.372682 TID/PID 8346/8346 (simfail/simfail):
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63 (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:120:0)
do_syscall_64+0x35 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:80:7) . do_syscall_x64
(arch/x86/entry/common.c:50:12) 73us [-ENOMEM] __x64_sys_bpf+0x1a
(kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5067:1) 70us [-ENOMEM] __sys_bpf+0x38b
(kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4947:9) . map_create (kernel/bpf/syscall.c:1106:8)
. find_and_alloc_map (kernel/bpf/syscall.c:132:5) ! 50us [-ENOMEM]
array_map_alloc !* 2us [NULL] bpf_map_alloc_percpu Could you double
check? It does need corresponding kernel source though. |
>
> How about adding a tracepoint in bpf_check_attach_target_with_klog()?
> It's to avoid putting stuff in dmesg.
>
> Thanks,
> Leon
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists