netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] skip verifier/map tests if kernel support is missing

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: <20181218213013.GD20955@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:30:13 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, daniel@...earbox.net,
        ecree@...arflare.com, quentin.monnet@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] skip verifier/map tests if kernel
 support is missing

On 12/18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:25:48AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > If test_maps/test_verifier is running against the kernel which doesn't
> > have _all_ BPF features enabled, it fails with an error. This patch
> > series tries to probe kernel support for each failed test and skip
> > it instead. This lets users run BPF selftests in the not-all-bpf-yes
> > environments and received correct PASS/NON-PASS result.
> > 
> > See https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg539331.html for more
> > context.
> > 
> > The series goes like this:
> > 
> > * patch #1 adds bpf_prog_type_supported() and
> >   bpf_map_type_supported() which query the kernel (insert 'return 0'
> >   program or try to create empty map with correct key/value sizes) and
> >   return supported/unsupported.
> >   Note: this functionality can later be reimplemented on top of Quentin's
> >   recent 'bpftool feature' patchset if he decides to move the probes
> >   into libbpf.
> > * patch #2 skips sockmap tests in test_maps.c if BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP
> >   map is not supported (if bpf_create_map fails, we probe the kernel
> >   for support)
> > * patch #3 skips verifier tests if test->prog_type is not supported (if
> >   bpf_verify_program fails, we probe the kernel for support)
> > * patch #4 skips verifier tests if test fixup map is not supported (if
> >   create_map fails, we probe the kernel for support)
> >   Note: we can probably move this probe into create_map helper and
> >   return some argument instead of adding skip_unsupported_map()
> >   to each fixup; but I'm not sure it's better.
> >   Also note: in current implementation we still print 'Failed to
> >   create hash map' from the create_map, but still skip the test.
> > * next patches fix various small issues that arise from the first four:
> >   * patch #5 sets "unknown func bpf_trace_printk#6" prog_type to
> >     BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT so it is correctly skipped in
> >     CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS=n case
> >   * patch #6 exposes BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_{SKB,SOCK,SOCK_ADDR} only when
> >     CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF=y, this makes verifier correctly skip appropriate
> >     tests
> > 
> > v2 changes:
> > 
> > * don't sprinkle "ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF" all around net/core/filter.c,
> >   doing it only in the bpf_types.h is enough to disable
> >   BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_{SKB,SOCK,SOCK_ADDR} prog types for non-cgroup
> >   enabled kernels
> 
> the patches look good to me.
> I think it's ok to proceed this way though long term we probably
> want to have such bpf_prog_type_supported() to be part of libbpf
> and reused in test_verifier.c and in bpftool.
Quentin is working on adding more generic bpf_xyz_type_supported() to
libbpf. My plan is to switch to them as soon as they are merged.
> Daniel, thoughts?
>