netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: Store map pin path in struct bpf

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, 22 Oct 2019 20:45:01 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: Store map pin path in struct bpf_map

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:13 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> >>
>> >> When pinning a map, store the pin path in struct bpf_map so it can be
>> >> re-used later for un-pinning. This simplifies the later addition of per-map
>> >> pin paths.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c |   19 ++++++++++---------
>> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> index cccfd9355134..b4fdd8ee3bbd 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ struct bpf_map {
>> >>         void *priv;
>> >>         bpf_map_clear_priv_t clear_priv;
>> >>         enum libbpf_map_type libbpf_type;
>> >> +       char *pin_path;
>> >>  };
>> >>
>> >>  struct bpf_secdata {
>> >> @@ -1929,6 +1930,7 @@ int bpf_map__reuse_fd(struct bpf_map *map, int fd)
>> >>         if (err)
>> >>                 goto err_close_new_fd;
>> >>         free(map->name);
>> >> +       zfree(&map->pin_path);
>> >>
>> >
>> > While you are touching this function, can you please also fix error
>> > handling in it? We should store -errno locally on error, before we
>> > call close() which might change errno.
>>
>> Didn't actually look much at the surrounding function, TBH. I do expect
>> that I will need to go poke into this for the follow-on "automatic reuse
>> of pinned maps" series anyway. But sure, I can do a bit of cleanup in a
>> standalone patch first :)
>>
>> >>         map->fd = new_fd;
>> >>         map->name = new_name;
>> >> @@ -4022,6 +4024,7 @@ int bpf_map__pin(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>> >>                 return -errno;
>> >>         }
>> >>
>> >> +       map->pin_path = strdup(path);
>> >
>> > if (!map->pin_path) {
>> >     err = -errno;
>> >     goto err_close_new_fd;
>> > }
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> >>         pr_debug("pinned map '%s'\n", path);
>> >>
>> >>         return 0;
>> >> @@ -4031,6 +4034,9 @@ int bpf_map__unpin(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>> >>  {
>> >>         int err;
>> >>
>> >> +       if (!path)
>> >> +               path = map->pin_path;
>> >
>> > This semantics is kind of weird. Given we now remember pin_path,
>> > should we instead check that user-provided path is actually correct
>> > and matches what we stored? Alternatively, bpf_map__unpin() w/o path
>> > argument looks like a cleaner API.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess the function without a path argument would make the most
>> sense. However, we can't really change the API of bpf_map__unpin()
>> (unless you're proposing a symbol-versioned new version?). Dunno if it's
>> worth it to include a new, somewhat oddly-named, function to achieve
>> this? For the internal libbpf uses at least it's easy enough for the
>> caller to just go bpf_map__unpin(map, map->pin_path), so I could also
>> just drop this change? WDYT?
>
> I'd probably do strcmp(map->pin_path, path), if path is specified.
> This will support existing use cases, will allow NULL if we don't want
> to bother remembering pin_path, will prevent weird use case of pinning
> to one path, but unpinning another one.

So something like

if (path && map->pin_path && strcmp(path, map->pin_path))
 return -EINVAL
else if (!path)
 path = map->pin_path;

?

> Ideally, all this pinning will just be done declaratively and will
> happen automatically, so users won't even have to know about this API
> :)

Yeah, that's where I'm hoping to get to. But, well, the pin/unpin
functions already exist so we do need to keep them working...

-Toke