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  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]
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2016 16:20:16 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: bpf bounded loops. Was: [flamebait] xdp

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:42:15AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> >> As far as pattern search for DNS packets...
> >> it was requested by Cloudflare guys back in March:
> >> https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/issues/471
> >> and it is useful for several tracing use cases as well.
> >> Unfortunately no one had time to implement it yet.
> > 
> > The string operations you proposed on the other hand, which would count
> > as one eBPF instructions, would give a lot more flexibility and allow
> > more cycles to burn, but don't help parsing binary protocols like IPv6
> > extension headers.

these are two separate things. we need pattern search regardless
of bounded loops. bpf program shouldn't be doing any complicated
algorithms. The main reasons to have loops are:
- speed up execution (smaller I-cache footprint)
- avoid forcing compiler to unroll loops (easier for users)
- support loops where unroll is not possible (like example below)

> My rough thinking on this was the verifier had to start looking for loop
> invariants and to guarantee termination. Sounds scary in general but
> LLVM could put these in some normal form for us and the verifier could
> only accept decreasing loops, the invariants could be required to be
> integers, etc. By simplifying the loop enough the problem becomes
> tractable.

yep. I think what Hannes was proposing earlier is straighforward
to implement for a compiler guy. The following:
for (int i = 0; i < (var & 0xff); i++)
  sum += map->value[i];  /* map value_size >= 0xff */
is obviously bounded and dataflow analysis can easily prove
that all memory operations are valid.
Static analysis tools do way way more than this.

> I think this would be better than new instructions and/or multiple
> verifiers.

agree that it's better than new instructions that would have
required JIT changes. Though there are pros to new insns too :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists