netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Allow bpf_map_lookup

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]

Date:   Tue, 04 Jun 2019 22:07:05 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Allow bpf_map_lookup_elem() on an xskmap

Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> writes:

> On 4 Jun 2019, at 9:43, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:38:51 -0700
>> Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, the AF_XDP code uses a separate map in order to
>>> determine if an xsk is bound to a queue.  Instead of doing this,
>>> have bpf_map_lookup_elem() return the queue_id, as a way of
>>> indicating that there is a valid entry at the map index.
>>
>> Just a reminder, that once we choose a return value, there the
>> queue_id, then it basically becomes UAPI, and we cannot change it.
>
> Yes - Alexei initially wanted to return the sk_cookie instead, but
> that's 64 bits and opens up a whole other can of worms.
>
>
>> Can we somehow use BTF to allow us to extend this later?
>>
>> I was also going to point out that, you cannot return a direct pointer
>> to queue_id, as BPF-prog side can modify this... but Daniel already
>> pointed this out.
>
> So, I see three solutions here (for this and Toke's patchset also,
> which is encountering the same problem).
>
> 1) add a scratch register (Toke's approach)
> 2) add a PTR_TO_<type>, which has the access checked.  This is the most
>    flexible approach, but does seem a bit overkill at the moment.
> 3) add another helper function, say, bpf_map_elem_present() which just
>    returns a boolean value indicating whether there is a valid map entry
>    or not.
>
> I was starting to do 2), but wanted to get some more feedback first.

I think I prefer 2) over 3); since we have a verifier that can actually
enforce something like read-only behaviour, actually having access to
the value will probably be useful to someone.

I can obviously live with 1) as well, of course (since I already did
that; though I just now realise that I forgot to make the scratch space
per-CPU)... :)

-Toke