netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] devmap: Allow map lookups from eBPF

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: <87blzdfaza.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Tue, 04 Jun 2019 20:42:49 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, brouer@...hat.com,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] devmap: Allow map lookups from eBPF

Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:

> On Tue, 04 Jun 2019 17:24:10 +0200
> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't currently allow lookups into a devmap from eBPF, because the map
>> lookup returns a pointer directly to the dev->ifindex, which shouldn't be
>> modifiable from eBPF.
>> 
>> However, being able to do lookups in devmaps is useful to know (e.g.)
>> whether forwarding to a specific interface is enabled. Currently, programs
>> work around this by keeping a shadow map of another type which indicates
>> whether a map index is valid.
>> 
>> To allow lookups, simply copy the ifindex into a scratch variable and
>> return a pointer to this. If an eBPF program does modify it, this doesn't
>> matter since it will be overridden on the next lookup anyway. While this
>> does add a write to every lookup, the overhead of this is negligible
>> because the cache line is hot when both the write and the subsequent
>> read happens.
>
> When we choose the return value, here the ifindex, then this basically
> becomes UABI, right?

Well, we already have UABI on the insert side, where the value being
inserted has to be an ifindex. And we enforce value_size==4 when
creating the map. So IMO I'm just keeping to the already established
UAPI here.

That being said...

> Can we somehow use BTF to help us to make this extensible?

... this would not necessarily be a bad thing, it just needs to be done
on both the insert and lookup sides.

But I think this is a separate issue, which we need to solve anyway. And
I'm still not convinced that the map value is the right place to specify
what resources we want ;)

-Toke