linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf: Implement bpf_probe_read_kernel

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:
 <MEYP282MB23123AF9749F72F14FEEFCD7C6EF2@MEYP282MB2312.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:31:32 +0800
From: Levi Zim <rsworktech@...look.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
 Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@...il.com>, Jordan Rome <linux@...danrome.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
 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>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-trace-kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf: Implement
 bpf_probe_read_kernel_dynptr helper

On 2025-01-28 07:09, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 2:54 PM Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 5:04 PM Alexei Starovoitov
>> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 5:05 PM Levi Zim <rsworktech@...look.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2025/1/26 00:58, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>   > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:30 AM Levi Zim via B4 Relay
>>>>   > <devnull+rsworktech.outlook.com@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>   >> From: Levi Zim <rsworktech@...look.com>
>>>>   >>
>>>>   >> This patch add a helper function bpf_probe_read_kernel_dynptr:
>>>>   >>
>>>>   >> long bpf_probe_read_kernel_dynptr(const struct bpf_dynptr *dst,
>>>>   >>          u32 offset, u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr, u64 flags);
>>>>   > We stopped adding helpers years ago.
>>>>   > Only new kfuncs are allowed.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I didn't know that. Just asking, is there any
>>>> documentation/discussion
>>>> about stopping adding helpers?
>>>>
>>>> I will switch the implementation to kfuncs in v3.
>>>>
>>>>   > This particular one doesn't look useful as-is.
>>>>   > The same logic can be expressed with
>>>>   > - create dynptr
>>>>   > - dynptr_slice
>>>>   > - copy_from_kernel
>>>>
>>>> By copy_from_kernel I assume you mean bpf_probe_read_kernel. The problem
>>>> with dynptr_slice_rdwr and probe_read_kernel is that they only support a
>>>> compile-time constant size [1].
>>>>
>>>> But in order to best utilize the space on a BPF ringbuf, it is possible
>>>> to reserve a
>>>> variable length of space as dynptr on a ringbuf with
>>>> bpf_ringbuf_reserve_dynptr.
>> For our uprobes, we've run into similar issues around doing variable-sized
>> bpf_probe_read_user() into ring buffers for our debugger [1]. Our use case
>> is that we generate uprobes that recursively read data structures until we
>> fill up a buffer. The verifier's insistence on knowing statically that a read
>> fits into the buffer makes for awkward code, and makes it hard to pack the
>> buffer fully; we have to split our reads into a couple of static size classes.
>>
>> Any chance there'd be interest in taking the opportunity to support
>> dynamically-sized reads from userspace too? :)
> That's bpf_probe_read_user_dynptr() from patch #2, no?
>
> But generally speaking, here's a list of new APIs that we'd need to
> cover all existing fixed buffer versions:
>
> - non-sleepable probe reads:
>
>    bpf_probe_read_kernel_dynptr()
>    bpf_probe_read_user_dynptr()
>    bpf_probe_read_kernel_str_dynptr()
I think the _str_dynptr versions are probably not worth adding.
For example, when we use probe_read_kernel_str, the length of the str is 
usually
not known and we usually allocate a fixed size buffer for it. If we do 
know the
length of the str beforehand, we can just use probe_read_kernel_dynptr.
>    bpf_probe_read_user_str_dynptr()
>
> - sleepable probe reads (copy_from_user):
>
> bpf_copy_from_user_dynptr()
> bpf_copy_from_user_str_dynptr()
>
> - and then we have complementary task-based APIs for non-current process:
>
> bpf_probe_read_user_task_dynptr()
> bpf_probe_read_user_str_task_dynptr()
> bpf_copy_from_user_task_dynptr()
> bpf_copy_from_user_str_task_dynptr()
>
> Jordan is working on non-dynptr version of
> bpf_copy_from_user_str_task(), once he's done with that, we'll add
> dynptr version, probably.
>
>> [1] https://side-eye.io
>>
>>> That makes sense. The commit log didn't call it out.
>>> Please spell out the motivation clearly.
>>> Also why bpf_probe_read_kernel_common ?
>>> Do we need to memset() it on failure?
>>>