netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 0/4] bpf: remove __rcu annotations from bpf_prog

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: <CAADnVQ+LPLfdfkv2otb6HRPeQiiDyr4ZO04B--vrXT_Tu=-9xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 19:27:29 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/4] bpf: remove __rcu annotations from bpf_prog_array

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:11 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
>
> On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:53 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > Existing __rcu annotations don't add anything to the safety.
> >
> > what do you mean?
> > BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY derefs these pointers under rcu.
> And I'm not removing them from the struct definitions, I'm removing __rcu
> from the helpers' arguments only. Because those helpers are always called
> with the mutex and don't need it. To reiterate: rcu_dereference_protected
> is enough to get a pointer (from __rcu annotated) for the duration
> of the mutex, helpers can operate on the non-annotated (dereferenced) prog
> array.
>
> Read section still does the following (BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY):
>
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         p = rcu_dereference(__rcu'd progs);
>         while (p) {}
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>
> And write sections do:
>
>         mutex_lock(&mtx);
>         p = rcu_dereference_protected(__rcu'd progs, lockdep_is_held(&mtx);
>         // ^^^ does rcu_dereference in the mutex protected section
>         bpf_prog_array_length(p);
>         bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(p, ...);
>         bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(p);
>         bpf_prog_array_copy_info(p);
>         bpf_prog_array_copy(p, ...);
>         bpf_prog_array_free(p);

what about activate_effective_progs() ?
I wouldn't want to lose the annotation there.
but then array_free will lose it?
in some cases it's called without mutex in a destruction path.
also how do you propose to solve different 'mtx' in
lockdep_is_held(&mtx)); ?
passing it through the call chain is imo not clean.

I wonder what others think about this whole discussion.

>         // ^^^ all these helpers are consistent already with or
>         // without __rcu annotation because we hold a mutex and
>         // guarantee no concurrent updates, so __rcu annotations
>         // for their input arguments is not needed.
>         mutex_unlock(&mtx);