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, 10 Oct 2018 17:50:01 -0500
From:   Mauricio Vasquez <mauricio.vasquez@...ito.it>
To:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/7] bpf: add MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM
 syscall



On 10/10/2018 05:34 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:48 AM Mauricio Vasquez
> <mauricio.vasquez@...ito.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/2018 11:48 AM, Song Liu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:06 AM Mauricio Vasquez B
>>> <mauricio.vasquez@...ito.it> wrote:
>>>> The following patch implements a bpf queue/stack maps that
>>>> provides the peek/pop/push functions.  There is not a direct
>>>> relationship between those functions and the current maps
>>>> syscalls, hence a new MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM syscall is added,
>>>> this is mapped to the pop operation in the queue/stack maps
>>>> and it is still to implement in other kind of maps.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vasquez B <mauricio.vasquez@...ito.it>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/bpf.h      |    1 +
>>>>    include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |    1 +
>>>>    kernel/bpf/syscall.c     |   82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 84 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
>>>> index 9b558713447f..5793f0c7fbb5 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct bpf_map_ops {
>>>>           void *(*map_lookup_elem)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key);
>>>>           int (*map_update_elem)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value, u64 flags);
>>>>           int (*map_delete_elem)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key);
>>>> +       void *(*map_lookup_and_delete_elem)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key);
>>>>
>>>>           /* funcs called by prog_array and perf_event_array map */
>>>>           void *(*map_fd_get_ptr)(struct bpf_map *map, struct file *map_file,
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> index f9187b41dff6..3bb94aa2d408 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ enum bpf_cmd {
>>>>           BPF_BTF_LOAD,
>>>>           BPF_BTF_GET_FD_BY_ID,
>>>>           BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY,
>>>> +       BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM,
>>>>    };
>>>>
>>>>    enum bpf_map_type {
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>>> index f36c080ad356..6907d661dea5 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>>> @@ -980,6 +980,85 @@ static int map_get_next_key(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>>>           return err;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +#define BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM_LAST_FIELD value
>>>> +
>>>> +static int map_lookup_and_delete_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       void __user *ukey = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->key);
>>>> +       void __user *uvalue = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->value);
>>>> +       int ufd = attr->map_fd;
>>>> +       struct bpf_map *map;
>>>> +       void *key, *value, *ptr;
>>>> +       u32 value_size;
>>>> +       struct fd f;
>>>> +       int err;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM))
>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +       f = fdget(ufd);
>>>> +       map = __bpf_map_get(f);
>>>> +       if (IS_ERR(map))
>>>> +               return PTR_ERR(map);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!(f.file->f_mode & FMODE_CAN_WRITE)) {
>>>> +               err = -EPERM;
>>>> +               goto err_put;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       key = __bpf_copy_key(ukey, map->key_size);
>>>> +       if (IS_ERR(key)) {
>>>> +               err = PTR_ERR(key);
>>>> +               goto err_put;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       value_size = map->value_size;
>>>> +
>>>> +       err = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +       value = kmalloc(value_size, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
>>>> +       if (!value)
>>>> +               goto free_key;
>>>> +
>>>> +       err = -EFAULT;
>>>> +       if (copy_from_user(value, uvalue, value_size) != 0)
>>>> +               goto free_value;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* must increment bpf_prog_active to avoid kprobe+bpf triggering from
>>>> +        * inside bpf map update or delete otherwise deadlocks are possible
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       preempt_disable();
>>>> +       __this_cpu_inc(bpf_prog_active);
>>>> +       if (map->ops->map_lookup_and_delete_elem) {
>>>> +               rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +               ptr = map->ops->map_lookup_and_delete_elem(map, key);
>>>> +               if (ptr)
>>>> +                       memcpy(value, ptr, value_size);
>>> I think we are exposed to race condition with push and pop in parallel.
>>> map_lookup_and_delete_elem() only updates the head/tail, so it gives
>>> no protection for the buffer pointed by ptr.
>> queue/stack maps does not use this 'ptr', the pop operation directly
>> copies the value into the buffer allocated in map_lookup_and_delete_elem().
>> The copy from the queue/stack buffer into 'value' and the head/tail
>> update are protected by a spinlock in the queue/stack maps implementation.
>>
>> On the other hand, future implementation of map_lookup_and_delete
>> operation in other kind of maps should guarantee that the return ptr is
>> rcu protected.
>>
>> Does it make sense to you?
> I reread the other patch, and found it does NOT use the following logic for
> queue and stack:
>
>                 rcu_read_lock();
>                 ptr = map->ops->map_lookup_and_delete_elem(map, key);
>                 if (ptr)
>                         memcpy(value, ptr, value_size);
>
> I guess this part is not used at all? Can we just remove it?
>
> Thanks,
> Song

This is the base code for map_lookup_and_delete support, it is not used 
in queue/stack maps.

I think we can leave it there, so when somebody implements 
lookup_and_delete for other maps doesn't have to care about implementing 
also this.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> +               rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +               err = ptr ? 0 : -ENOENT;
>>>> +       } else {
>>>> +               err = -ENOTSUPP;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
>>>> +       preempt_enable();
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (err)
>>>> +               goto free_value;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (copy_to_user(uvalue, value, value_size) != 0)
>>>> +               goto free_value;
>>>> +
>>>> +       err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +free_value:
>>>> +       kfree(value);
>>>> +free_key:
>>>> +       kfree(key);
>>>> +err_put:
>>>> +       fdput(f);
>>>> +       return err;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static const struct bpf_prog_ops * const bpf_prog_types[] = {
>>>>    #define BPF_PROG_TYPE(_id, _name) \
>>>>           [_id] = & _name ## _prog_ops,
>>>> @@ -2453,6 +2532,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(bpf, int, cmd, union bpf_attr __user *, uattr, unsigned int, siz
>>>>           case BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY:
>>>>                   err = bpf_task_fd_query(&attr, uattr);
>>>>                   break;
>>>> +       case BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM:
>>>> +               err = map_lookup_and_delete_elem(&attr);
>>>> +               break;
>>>>           default:
>>>>                   err = -EINVAL;
>>>>                   break;
>>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ