netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] bpf_xdp_redirect_map: Perform map lookup in eBPF helper

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87mui284uu.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:57:13 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] bpf_xdp_redirect_map: Perform map lookup in eBPF helper

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> writes:

> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>
>> On 06/28/2019 09:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 06/23/2019 04:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The bpf_redirect_map() helper used by XDP programs doesn't return any
>>>>> indication of whether it can successfully redirect to the map index it was
>>>>> given. Instead, BPF programs have to track this themselves, leading to
>>>>> programs using duplicate maps to track which entries are populated in the
>>>>> devmap.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch fixes this by moving the map lookup into the bpf_redirect_map()
>>>>> helper, which makes it possible to return failure to the eBPF program. The
>>>>> lower bits of the flags argument is used as the return code, which means
>>>>> that existing users who pass a '0' flag argument will get XDP_ABORTED.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this, a BPF program can check the return code from the helper call and
>>>>> react by, for instance, substituting a different redirect. This works for
>>>>> any type of map used for redirect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Overall series looks good to me. Just very small things inline here & in the
>>>> other two patches:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> @@ -3750,9 +3742,16 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_xdp_redirect_map, struct bpf_map *, map, u32, ifindex,
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);
>>>>>  
>>>>> -	if (unlikely(flags))
>>>>> +	/* Lower bits of the flags are used as return code on lookup failure */
>>>>> +	if (unlikely(flags > XDP_TX))
>>>>>  		return XDP_ABORTED;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +	ri->item = __xdp_map_lookup_elem(map, ifindex);
>>>>> +	if (unlikely(!ri->item)) {
>>>>> +		WRITE_ONCE(ri->map, NULL);
>>>>
>>>> This WRITE_ONCE() is not needed. We never set it before at this point.
>>> 
>>> You mean the WRITE_ONCE() wrapper is not needed, or the set-to-NULL is
>>> not needed? The reason I added it is in case an eBPF program calls the
>>> helper twice before returning, where the first lookup succeeds but the
>>> second fails; in that case we want to clear the ->map pointer, no?
>>
>> Yeah I meant the set-to-NULL. So if first call succeeds, and the second one
>> fails, then the expected semantics wrt the first call are as if the program
>> would have called bpf_xdp_redirect() only?
>>
>> Looking at the code again, if we set ri->item to NULL, then we /must/
>> also set ri->map to NULL. I guess there are two options: i) leave as
>> is, ii) keep the __xdp_map_lookup_elem() result in a temp var, if it's
>> NULL return flags, otherwise only /then/ update ri->item, so that
>> semantics are similar to the invalid flags check earlier. I guess fine
>> either way, in case of i) there should probably be a comment since
>> it's less obvious.
>
> Yeah, I think a temp var is probably clearer, will do that :)

Actually, thinking about this some more, I think it's better to
completely clear out the state the second time around. I'll add a
comment to explain.

-Toke