netdev - [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: add bpf_descendant

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: <20190410203631.1576576-1-javierhonduco@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:36:28 -0700
From:   Javier Honduvilla Coto <javierhonduco@...com>
To:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <yhs@...com>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: add bpf_descendant_of helper

Hi all,

This patch adds the bpf_descendant_of helper which accepts a PID and
returns 1 if the PID of the process currently being executed is a
descendant of it or if it's itself. Returns 0 otherwise.

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.

Let me know what do you think!

Thanks,

---
Changes in V5:
        - Addressed code review feedback
        - Renamed from progenyof => descendant_of as suggested by Jon Haslam
and Brendan Gregg

Changes in V4:
        - Rebased on latest bpf-next after merge window

Changes in V3:
        - Removed RCU read (un)locking as BPF programs alredy run in RCU locked
                context
        - progenyof(0) now returns 1, which, semantically makes more sense
        - Added new test case for PID 0 and changed sentinel value for errors
        - Rebase on latest bpf-next/master
        - Used my work email as somehow I accidentally used my personal one in v2

Changes in V2:
        - Adding missing docs in include/uapi/linux/bpf.h


Javier Honduvilla Coto (3):
  bpf: add bpf_descendant_of helper
  bpf: sync kernel uapi headers
  bpf: add tests for bpf_descendant_of

 include/linux/bpf.h                           |   1 +
 include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                      |  10 +-
 kernel/bpf/core.c                             |   1 +
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |  27 ++
 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c                      |   2 +
 tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                |  10 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore        |   1 +
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile          |   2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h     |   3 +
 .../bpf/progs/test_descendant_of_kern.c       |  46 +++
 .../selftests/bpf/test_descendant_of_user.c   | 268 ++++++++++++++++++
 11 files changed, 368 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_descendant_of_kern.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_descendant_of_user.c

-- 
2.17.1