linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem

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: <CAEf4BzYB-KbDh+h3YXEGeWXcvaVchjf-2m2-nSQoWPE67zY68Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:32:10 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, 
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, 
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem_cache iterator

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:06 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Add a new open coded iterator for kmem_cache which can be called from a
> BPF program like below.  It doesn't take any argument and traverses all
> kmem_cache entries.
>
>   struct kmem_cache *pos;
>
>   bpf_for_each(kmem_cache, pos) {
>       ...
>   }
>
> As it needs to grab slab_mutex, it should be called from sleepable BPF
> programs only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c         |  3 ++
>  kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 073e6f04f4d765ff..d1dfa4f335577914 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -3111,6 +3111,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_copy_from_user_str, KF_SLEEPABLE)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_kmem_cache)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)

I'm curious. Having bpf_iter_kmem_cache_{new,next,destroy} functions,
can we rewrite kmem_cache_iter_seq_next in terms of these ones, so
that we have less duplication of iteration logic? Or there will be
some locking concerns preventing this? (I haven't looked into the
actual logic much, sorry, lazy question)

>  BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
>
>  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> index ebc101d7da51b57c..31ddaf452b20a458 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,93 @@ static const struct bpf_iter_seq_info kmem_cache_iter_seq_info = {
>         .seq_ops                = &kmem_cache_iter_seq_ops,
>  };
>

[...]