netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] bpf: add a bpf_override

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: <73e451e0-64ce-6f77-5f8b-bde39a181941@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:09:30 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc:     rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

On 12/18/2017 10:51 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:12:54 -0500
> Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> wrote:
>> From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
>>
>> Error injection is sloppy and very ad-hoc.  BPF could fill this niche
>> perfectly with it's kprobe functionality.  We could make sure errors are
>> only triggered in specific call chains that we care about with very
>> specific situations.  Accomplish this with the bpf_override_funciton
>> helper.  This will modify the probe'd callers return value to the
>> specified value and set the PC to an override function that simply
>> returns, bypassing the originally probed function.  This gives us a nice
>> clean way to implement systematic error injection for all of our code
>> paths.
> 
> OK, got it. I think the error_injectable function list should be defined
> in kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c because only bpf calls it and needs to care
> the "safeness".
> 
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> index 8dc0161cec8f..1ea748d682fd 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>> @@ -97,3 +97,17 @@ int arch_prepare_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
>>  	p->ainsn.boostable = false;
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>> +
>> +asmlinkage void override_func(void);
>> +asm(
>> +	".type override_func, @function\n"
>> +	"override_func:\n"
>> +	"	ret\n"
>> +	".size override_func, .-override_func\n"
>> +);
>> +
>> +void arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> +	regs->ip = (unsigned long)&override_func;
>> +}
>> +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function);
> 
> Calling this as "override_function" is meaningless. This is a function
> which just return. So I think combination of just_return_func() and
> arch_bpf_override_func_just_return() will be better.
> 
> Moreover, this arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c is an archtecture
> dependent implementation of kprobes, not bpf.

Josef, please work out any necessary cleanups that would still need
to be addressed based on Masami's feedback and send them as follow-up
patches, thanks.

> Hmm, arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c will be better place?

(No, it's JIT only and I'd really prefer to keep it that way, mixing
 this would result in a huge mess.)