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, 3 Apr 2019 10:30:31 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Edward Cree <>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Paul Chaignon <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,,, Xiao Han <>,, Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: report verifier bugs as warnings

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:52:40PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 15:37, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > If we really want to have a kernel warn, then lets add a
> > helper macro verbose_and_warn(...) which will trigger a one-time warning, but keeps
> > the verbose log intact as well.
> +1
> Any time the verifier detects that its internal invariants have been broken,
>  logging a warning is the right thing to do, just like any other part of the
>  kernel.

It's not black and white.
As I said I don't think verbose_and_warn() is necessary.

Messages like:
verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n");
are technically 'broken internal invariant', but it shouldn't be a warn.

Whereas this:
        if (WARN_ON(regno >= MAX_BPF_REG)) {
                verbose(env, "mark_reg_known_zero(regs, %u)\n", regno);
                /* Something bad happened, let's kill all regs */
                for (regno = 0; regno < MAX_BPF_REG; regno++)
                        __mark_reg_not_init(regs + regno);
should stay as-is.
It's a warn, and verbose message, and clean of regs.
        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ptr_reg)) {
                print_verifier_state(env, state);
                verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unexpected ptr_reg\n");
                return -EINVAL;
is a warn and more than just a verbose message.

verbose_and_warn() doesn't fit these two practical cases of warn + verbose.
Hence I see no reason to combine warn and verbose into single helper.
They're perfectly fine being separate.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists