linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 2/7] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach

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: <CAEf4BzZbLWKJkykHDu_Az5h8HYT-h31ELY2KPE5=VOymRBbCCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:09:07 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, 
	Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/7] bpf: Add support for uprobe multi session attach

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:17 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 04:44:29PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 12:46 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Adding support to attach bpf program for entry and return probe
> > > of the same function. This is common use case which at the moment
> > > requires to create two uprobe multi links.
> > >
> > > Adding new BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION attach type that instructs
> > > kernel to attach single link program to both entry and exit probe.
> > >
> > > It's possible to control execution of the bpf program on return
> > > probe simply by returning zero or non zero from the entry bpf
> > > program execution to execute or not the bpf program on return
> > > probe respectively.
> > >
> >
> > pedantic nit: bpf -> BPF
>
> ok
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  1 +
> > >  kernel/bpf/syscall.c           |  9 +++++++--
> > >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c       | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  1 +
> > >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c         |  1 +
> > >  5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > LGTM
> >
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -3336,9 +3347,13 @@ uprobe_multi_link_handler(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs,
> > >                           __u64 *data)
> > >  {
> > >         struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe;
> > > +       int ret;
> > >
> > >         uprobe = container_of(con, struct bpf_uprobe, consumer);
> > > -       return uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs);
> > > +       ret = uprobe_prog_run(uprobe, instruction_pointer(regs), regs);
> > > +       if (uprobe->consumer.session)
> > > +               return ret ? UPROBE_HANDLER_IGNORE : 0;
> >
> > Should we restrict the return range to [0, 1] for UPROBE_SESSION
> > programs on the verifier side (given it's a new program type and we
> > can do that)?
>
> yes, I think we can do that.. we have BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION as
> expected_attach_type so we can do that during the load
>
> hum, is it too late to do that for kprobe session as well?

I'd say let's do it, unlikely we'll break anyone. I'd expect everyone
doing explicit return 0 or return 1 anyways.

>
> thanks,
> jirka
>
> >
> > > +       return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> > [...]