netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: add bpf

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:26:41 +0000
From:   Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Javier Honduvilla Coto <javierhonduco@...com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: add bpf_progenyof helper

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:36:49PM -0800, Javier Honduvilla Coto wrote:
> This patch adds the bpf_progenyof helper which receives a PID and returns
What is progenof?

> 1 if the process currently being executed is in the process hierarchy
> including itself or 0 if not.
> 
> This is very useful in tracing programs when we want to filter by a
> given PID and all the children it might spawn. The current workarounds
> most people implement for this purpose have issues:
> 
> - Attaching to process spawning syscalls and dynamically add those PIDs
>   to some bpf map that would be used to filter is cumbersome and
> potentially racy.
> - Unrolling some loop to perform what this helper is doing consumes lots
>   of instructions. That and the impossibility to jump backwards makes it
> really hard to be correct in really large process chains.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Javier Honduvilla Coto <javierhonduco@...com>
> ---
>  include/linux/bpf.h      |  1 +
>  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  3 ++-
>  kernel/bpf/core.c        |  1 +
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c     | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c |  2 ++
>  5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index de18227b3d95..447395ba202b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -921,6 +921,7 @@ extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sk_redirect_map_proto;
>  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_spin_lock_proto;
>  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_spin_unlock_proto;
>  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_local_storage_proto;
> +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_progenyof_proto;
It seems only used in bpf_trace.c.  Does it have to be here?

>  
>  /* Shared helpers among cBPF and eBPF. */
>  void bpf_user_rnd_init_once(void);
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index bcdd2474eee7..804e4218eb28 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -2457,7 +2457,8 @@ union bpf_attr {
>  	FN(spin_lock),			\
>  	FN(spin_unlock),		\
>  	FN(sk_fullsock),		\
> -	FN(tcp_sock),
> +	FN(tcp_sock),			\
> +	FN(progenyof),
Please add doc like other helpers do.

>  
>  /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which helper
>   * function eBPF program intends to call
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index ef88b167959d..69e209fbd128 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -2015,6 +2015,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_current_uid_gid_proto __weak;
>  const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_current_comm_proto __weak;
>  const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto __weak;
>  const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_local_storage_proto __weak;
> +const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_progenyof_proto __weak;
>  
>  const struct bpf_func_proto * __weak bpf_get_trace_printk_proto(void)
>  {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index a411fc17d265..3899787e8dbf 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/uidgid.h>
>  #include <linux/filter.h>
> +#include <linux/init_task.h>
>  
>  /* If kernel subsystem is allowing eBPF programs to call this function,
>   * inside its own verifier_ops->get_func_proto() callback it should return
> @@ -364,3 +365,31 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_local_storage_proto = {
>  };
>  #endif
>  #endif
> +
> +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_progenyof, int, pid)
> +{
> +	int result = 0;
> +	struct task_struct *task = current;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(!task))
hmm.... Could current be NULL?

> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	while (task != &init_task) {
I don't know the details of init_task, so qq:
Could the passed in "pid" be the init_task->pid?
If possible, what is the expected "result"?

> +		if (task->pid == pid) {
> +			result = 1;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		task = rcu_dereference(task->real_parent);
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return result;
> +}
> +
> +const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_progenyof_proto = {
> +	.func		= bpf_progenyof,
> +	.gpl_only	= false,
> +	.ret_type	= RET_INTEGER,
> +	.arg1_type	= ARG_ANYTHING,
> +};
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index f1a86a0d881d..8602ae83c799 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -600,6 +600,8 @@ tracing_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
>  		return &bpf_get_prandom_u32_proto;
>  	case BPF_FUNC_probe_read_str:
>  		return &bpf_probe_read_str_proto;
> +	case BPF_FUNC_progenyof:
> +		return &bpf_progenyof_proto;
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
>  	case BPF_FUNC_get_current_cgroup_id:
>  		return &bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto;
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>