[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef15f2b1-ae87-56a1-54b1-29ea27637d5b@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:34:30 +0900
From: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Mauricio Vasquez <mauricio.vasquez@...ito.it>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 2/4] bpf: return EOPNOTSUPP when map lookup isn't
supported
On 9/20/2018 3:40 AM, Mauricio Vasquez wrote:
>
>
> On 09/19/2018 10:14 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:51:41PM +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>>> Return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP) from map_lookup_elem() methods of below
>>> map types:
>>> - BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY
>>> - BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE
>>> - BPF_MAP_TYPE_XSKMAP
>>> - BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP/BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKHASH
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 2 +-
>>> kernel/bpf/sockmap.c | 2 +-
>>> kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 2 +-
>>> kernel/bpf/xskmap.c | 2 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>>> index dded84cbe814..24583da9ffd1 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>>> @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ static void fd_array_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
>>> static void *fd_array_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>>> {
>>> - return NULL;
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
>>> }
>> conceptually the set looks good to me.
>> Please add a test to test_verifier.c to make sure
>> that these lookup helpers cannot be called from BPF program.
>> Otherwise this diff may cause crashes.
>>
>>
> I think we can remove all these stub functions that return EOPNOTSUPP or
> EINVAL and return the error in syscall.c if ops->map_[update, delete,
> lookup, ...] is null.
> This will require to extend (and test) the verifier to guarantee that
> those helpers are not called in wrong maps, for example
> map_delete_element in array like maps.
>
> Would it make sense?
Thanks for review and suggestion.
I had thought about this way too (except adding restrictions in the
verifier). There is no strong reason for choosing current implementation.
I thought there must be some reason that those methods are implemented
and just returning NULL. Also there are no NULL checks for
map_lookup_elem stub. So I decided to simply change the return value.
If some more people agree with removing stub function idea, I will do it.
-Prashant
Powered by blists - more mailing lists