netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 1/9] net: introduce __init_skb{,_data,

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190321211325.GU7431@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:13:25 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Petar Penkov <peterpenkov96@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 1/9] net: introduce __init_skb{,_data,_shinfo}
 helpers

On 03/21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:13 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:01 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 08:44:33AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If we can agree that we switch everything to xpd-like, do we deprecate the
> > > > skb-one?
> > >
> > > This whole discussion that have been going on for long time is an indication
> > > that initial bpf flow dissector concept was not thought through
> > > and I regret on merging it in the first place.
> > > Adding more hacks on top of it with fake skbs is not going to make it any better.
> > > Since it's been in the official release we cannot remove it now.
> >
> > This patch set addresses the only open issue.
> >
> > That said, if direction is towards an alternative interface, then it would
> > make sense for the new interface to supplant the existing one for all
> > use-cases, even if that existing one cannot be removed.
> >
> > Essentially a BPF_PROG_TYPE_FLOW_DISSECTOR_RAW that
> > takes a simpler context than skb. And either that or a program of
> > type BPF_PROG_TYPE_FLOW_DISSECTOR can be attached in
> > skb_flow_dissector_bpf_prog_attach, but not both.
> 
> another idea is to keep 'struct __sk_buff' as a context,
> but have kernel side to be something like struct xdp_buff
> and disallow access to fields of __sk_buff depending on
> attach_type.
> and do different ctx rewrite for __sk_buff->foo
> depending on attach_type.
That's a great idea! The only problem that in this case, I guess, we
need another attach_type and need to ask users explicitly attach to it.

What if we go a bit further: always have xdp_buff-like struct in the kernel?
For the real skb it would have data..data_end point to linear packet data (or
the first fragment). We would always prohibit access to most __sk_buff
fields (like in patch #5 from this series). We'd have to write our
own bpf_skb_load_bytes, but that doesn't sound like a big issue.