| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190227062639.jpzwmm63iygad5f7@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
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
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists