netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: don't zero out the info struct in bpf_obj_get_info_by

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: <20170725162033.49e5a02a@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:20:33 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, kafai@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: don't zero out the info struct in
 bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd()

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:15:47 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:59:49 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > @@ -418,6 +420,8 @@ static void test_bpf_obj_id(void)
> > >   		nr_id_found++;
> > >
> > >   		err = bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd(prog_fd, &prog_info, &info_len);
> > > +		prog_infos[i].jited_prog_insns = 0;
> > > +		prog_infos[i].xlated_prog_insns = 0;    
> > 
> > Can you elaborate why this one above is needed?  
> 
> Ah, I removed the comment about it at the last minute.  The check below
> compares the info we get here with info we got reading the programs in
> the earlier loop - using memcmp().  This call, however, doesn't fill in
> the pointers for jited and xlated images, so the memcmp() would fail.
> 
> It used to work when bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd() was zeroing info, since
> the pointers would be cleared by it, and no dump ever returned, it
> didn't matter that the call sites differ.

FWIW the comment was this:
+               /* Clear the insns pointers, we're not requesting dumps here.   
+                * Otherwise the byte-by-byte comparison below would fail.      
+                */ 

> > >   		CHECK(err || info_len != sizeof(struct bpf_prog_info) ||
> > >   		      memcmp(&prog_info, &prog_infos[i], info_len),
> > >   		      "get-prog-info(next_id->fd)",  
>