| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbT7h2oDapgSwQr8gSMnunCssqu88KMdymMjgBGpZpA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:36:04 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: allow wide (u64) aligned stores for
some fields of bpf_sock_addr
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:53 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/28/19 4:10 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Since commit cd17d7770578 ("bpf/tools: sync bpf.h") clang decided
> > that it can do a single u64 store into user_ip6[2] instead of two
> > separate u32 ones:
> >
> > # 17: (18) r2 = 0x100000000000000
> > # ; ctx->user_ip6[2] = bpf_htonl(DST_REWRITE_IP6_2);
> > # 19: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +16) = r2
> > # invalid bpf_context access off=16 size=8
> >
> > From the compiler point of view it does look like a correct thing
> > to do, so let's support it on the kernel side.
> >
> > Credit to Andrii Nakryiko for a proper implementation of
> > bpf_ctx_wide_store_ok.
> >
> > Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> > Fixes: cd17d7770578 ("bpf/tools: sync bpf.h")
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
>
> The change looks good to me with the following nits:
> 1. could you add a cover letter for the patch set?
> typically if the number of patches is more than one,
> it would be a good practice with a cover letter.
> See bpf_devel_QA.rst .
> 2. with this change, the comments in uapi bpf.h
> are not accurate any more.
> __u32 user_ip6[4]; /* Allows 1,2,4-byte read an 4-byte write.
> * Stored in network byte order.
>
> */
> __u32 msg_src_ip6[4]; /* Allows 1,2,4-byte read an 4-byte write.
> * Stored in network byte order.
> */
> now for stores, aligned 8-byte write is permitted.
> could you update this as well?
>
> From the typical usage pattern, I did not see a need
> for 8-tye read of user_ip6 and msg_src_ip6 yet. So let
> us just deal with write for now.
But I guess it's still possible for clang to optimize two consecutive
4-byte reads into single 8-byte read in some circumstances? If that's
the case, maybe it's a good idea to have corresponding read checks as
well?
But overall this looks good to me:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
> With the above two nits,
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/filter.h | 6 ++++++
> > net/core/filter.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > index 340f7d648974..3901007e36f1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > @@ -746,6 +746,12 @@ bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok(u32 off, u32 size, u32 size_default)
> > return size <= size_default && (size & (size - 1)) == 0;
> > }
> >
> > +#define bpf_ctx_wide_store_ok(off, size, type, field) \
> > + (size == sizeof(__u64) && \
> > + off >= offsetof(type, field) && \
> > + off + sizeof(__u64) <= offsetofend(type, field) && \
> > + off % sizeof(__u64) == 0)
> > +
> > #define bpf_classic_proglen(fprog) (fprog->len * sizeof(fprog->filter[0]))
> >
> > static inline void bpf_prog_lock_ro(struct bpf_prog *fp)
> > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> > index dc8534be12fc..5d33f2146dab 100644
> > --- a/net/core/filter.c
> > +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> > @@ -6849,6 +6849,16 @@ static bool sock_addr_is_valid_access(int off, int size,
> > if (!bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok(off, size, size_default))
> > return false;
> > } else {
> > + if (bpf_ctx_wide_store_ok(off, size,
> > + struct bpf_sock_addr,
> > + user_ip6))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + if (bpf_ctx_wide_store_ok(off, size,
> > + struct bpf_sock_addr,
> > + msg_src_ip6))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > if (size != size_default)
> > return false;
> > }
> > @@ -7689,9 +7699,6 @@ static u32 xdp_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
> > /* SOCK_ADDR_STORE_NESTED_FIELD_OFF() has semantic similar to
> > * SOCK_ADDR_LOAD_NESTED_FIELD_SIZE_OFF() but for store operation.
> > *
> > - * It doesn't support SIZE argument though since narrow stores are not
> > - * supported for now.
> > - *
> > * In addition it uses Temporary Field TF (member of struct S) as the 3rd
> > * "register" since two registers available in convert_ctx_access are not
> > * enough: we can't override neither SRC, since it contains value to store, nor
> > @@ -7699,7 +7706,7 @@ static u32 xdp_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
> > * instructions. But we need a temporary place to save pointer to nested
> > * structure whose field we want to store to.
> > */
> > -#define SOCK_ADDR_STORE_NESTED_FIELD_OFF(S, NS, F, NF, OFF, TF) \
> > +#define SOCK_ADDR_STORE_NESTED_FIELD_OFF(S, NS, F, NF, SIZE, OFF, TF) \
> > do { \
> > int tmp_reg = BPF_REG_9; \
> > if (si->src_reg == tmp_reg || si->dst_reg == tmp_reg) \
> > @@ -7710,8 +7717,7 @@ static u32 xdp_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
> > offsetof(S, TF)); \
> > *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_FIELD_SIZEOF(S, F), tmp_reg, \
> > si->dst_reg, offsetof(S, F)); \
> > - *insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM( \
> > - BPF_FIELD_SIZEOF(NS, NF), tmp_reg, si->src_reg, \
> > + *insn++ = BPF_STX_MEM(SIZE, tmp_reg, si->src_reg, \
> > bpf_target_off(NS, NF, FIELD_SIZEOF(NS, NF), \
> > target_size) \
> > + OFF); \
> > @@ -7723,8 +7729,8 @@ static u32 xdp_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type,
> > TF) \
> > do { \
> > if (type == BPF_WRITE) { \
> > - SOCK_ADDR_STORE_NESTED_FIELD_OFF(S, NS, F, NF, OFF, \
> > - TF); \
> > + SOCK_ADDR_STORE_NESTED_FIELD_OFF(S, NS, F, NF, SIZE, \
> > + OFF, TF); \
> > } else { \
> > SOCK_ADDR_LOAD_NESTED_FIELD_SIZE_OFF( \
> > S, NS, F, NF, SIZE, OFF); \
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists