| 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: <20190701183858.GG6757@mini-arch>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:38:58 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
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 07/01, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 7/1/19 9:04 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 07/01, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >> 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?
> > I guess clang can do those kinds of optimizations. I can put it on my
> > todo and address later (or when we actually see it out in the wild).
>
> Okay, I find a Facebook internal app. does trying to read the 4 bytes
> and compare to a predefined loopback address. We may need to handle
> read cases as well. But this can be a followup after actual tryout.
Sounds good, will follow up on that.
> >
> >> But overall this looks good to me:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> > Thanks for a review!
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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