netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: one perf event close won't free bpf program attached by another perf event

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:17:03 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <ast@...com>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: one perf event close won't free bpf program
 attached by another perf event



On 9/20/17 6:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:38:36 -0700
> Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
> 
>> This patch fixes a bug exhibited by the following scenario:
>>    1. fd1 = perf_event_open with attr.config = ID1
>>    2. attach bpf program prog1 to fd1
>>    3. fd2 = perf_event_open with attr.config = ID1
>>       <this will be successful>
>>    4. user program closes fd2 and prog1 is detached from the tracepoint.
>>    5. user program with fd1 does not work properly as tracepoint
>>       no output any more.
>>
>> The issue happens at step 4. Multiple perf_event_open can be called
>> successfully, but only one bpf prog pointer in the tp_event. In the
>> current logic, any fd release for the same tp_event will free
>> the tp_event->prog.
>>
>> The fix is to free tp_event->prog only when the closing fd
>> corresponds to the one which registered the program.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>> ---
>>   Additional context: discussed with Alexei internally but did not find
>>   a solution which can avoid introducing the additional field in
>>   trace_event_call structure.
>>
>>   Peter, could you take a look as well and maybe you could have better
>>   alternative? Thanks!
>>
>>   include/linux/trace_events.h | 1 +
>>   kernel/events/core.c         | 3 ++-
>>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/trace_events.h b/include/linux/trace_events.h
>> index 7f11050..2e0f222 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/trace_events.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/trace_events.h
>> @@ -272,6 +272,7 @@ struct trace_event_call {
>>   	int				perf_refcount;
>>   	struct hlist_head __percpu	*perf_events;
>>   	struct bpf_prog			*prog;
>> +	struct perf_event		*bpf_prog_owner;
> 
> Does this have to be in the trace_event_call structure? Hmm, I'm
> wondering if the prog needs to be there (I should look to see if we can
> move it from it). The trace_event_call is created for *every* event,
> and there's thousands of them now. Every byte to this structure adds
> 1000s of bytes to the kernel. Would it be possible to attach the prog
> and the owner to the perf_event?

Regarding whether we could move the prog and the owner to the 
perf_event. It is possible. There is already a "prog" field in the
perf_event structure for overflow handler. We could reuse the "prog"
field and we do not need bpf_prog_owner any more. We can iterate
through trace_event_call->perf_events to find the event which has the
prog and executes it. This will support multiple prog's attaching to
the same trace_event_call as well.

This approach may need careful evaluation though.
(1). It adds runtime overhead although the overhead should be small
since perf_event attaching to the same trace_event_call should be small.
(2). trace_event_call->perf_events are per cpu data structure, that 
means, some filtering logic is needed to avoid the same perf_event prog 
is executing twice.
(3). since the list is traversed, the locking (rcu?) may be required to
pretect the list. Not sure whether additional locking is needed or not.

Alternative to using trace_event_call->perf_events, we may replace
"struct bpf_prog *prog" to a list (or some other list like data 
structure) to just record perf events which have bpf progs attached.
But this will add memory overhead to trace_event_call data structure.

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
>>   
>>   	int	(*perf_perm)(struct trace_event_call *,
>>   			     struct perf_event *);
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>> index 3e691b7..6bc21e2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> @@ -8171,6 +8171,7 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   	event->tp_event->prog = prog;
>> +	event->tp_event->bpf_prog_owner = event;
>>   
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -8185,7 +8186,7 @@ static void perf_event_free_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event)
>>   		return;
>>   
>>   	prog = event->tp_event->prog;
>> -	if (prog) {
>> +	if (prog && event->tp_event->bpf_prog_owner == event) {
>>   		event->tp_event->prog = NULL;
>>   		bpf_prog_put(prog);
>>   	}
>