linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Introduce path iterator

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLjvJCFjTiWpsBmfbyH5i88oq7yxjvaf+Th7tQANouA_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:13:18 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, repnop@...gle.com, 
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, 
	Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>, 
	Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>, m@...wtm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Introduce path iterator

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:59 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Introduce a path iterator, which reliably walk a struct path toward
> the root. This path iterator is based on path_walk_parent. A fixed
> zero'ed root is passed to path_walk_parent(). Therefore, unless the
> user terminates it earlier, the iterator will terminate at the real
> root.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/Makefile    |  1 +
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c   |  3 +++
>  kernel/bpf/path_iter.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c  |  5 ++++
>  4 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/path_iter.c
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> index 3a335c50e6e3..454a650d934e 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += kmem_cache_iter.o
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER),y)
>  obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += dmabuf_iter.o
>  endif
> +obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += path_iter.o
>
>  CFLAGS_REMOVE_percpu_freelist.o = $(CC_FLAGS_FTRACE)
>  CFLAGS_REMOVE_bpf_lru_list.o = $(CC_FLAGS_FTRACE)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index b71e428ad936..b190c78e40f6 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -3397,6 +3397,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_dmabuf_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPAB
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_dmabuf_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)
>  #endif
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, __bpf_trap)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_path_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_path_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_path_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)
>  BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
>
>  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/path_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/path_iter.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0d972ec84beb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/path_iter.c

I think Christian's preference was to keep
everything in fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c

Don't add a new file. Just add this iter there.

> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/* Copyright (c) 2025 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <linux/bpf_mem_alloc.h>
> +#include <linux/namei.h>
> +#include <linux/path.h>
> +
> +/* open-coded iterator */
> +struct bpf_iter_path {
> +       __u64 __opaque[3];
> +} __aligned(8);
> +
> +struct bpf_iter_path_kern {
> +       struct path path;
> +       __u64 flags;

Why? flags is unused. Don't waste space for it.