netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/5] Extend SOCKMAP to store listening sockets

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:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:26:51 +0200
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/5] Extend SOCKMAP to store listening sockets

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:56 PM CEST, John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Sitnicki wrote:

[...]

>> I'm looking for feedback if there's anything fundamentally wrong with
>> extending SOCKMAP map type like this that I might have missed.
>
> I think this looks good. The main reason I blocked it off before is mostly
> because I had no use-case for it and the complication with what to do with
> child sockets. Clearing the psock state seems OK to me if user wants to
> add it back to a map they can simply grab it again from a sockops
> event.

Thanks for taking a look at the code.

> By the way I would eventually like to see the lookup hook return the
> correct type (PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL) so that the verifier "knows" the type
> and the socket can be used the same as if it was pulled from a sk_lookup
> helper.

Wait... you had me scratching my head there for a minute.

I haven't whitelisted bpf_map_lookup_elem for SOCKMAP in
check_map_func_compatibility so verifier won't allow lookups from BPF.

If we wanted to do that, I don't actually have a use-case for it, I
think would have to extend get_func_proto for SK_SKB and SK_REUSEPORT
prog types. At least that's what docs for bpf_map_lookup_elem suggest:

/* If kernel subsystem is allowing eBPF programs to call this function,
 * inside its own verifier_ops->get_func_proto() callback it should return
 * bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto, so that verifier can properly check the arguments
 *
 * Different map implementations will rely on rcu in map methods
 * lookup/update/delete, therefore eBPF programs must run under rcu lock
 * if program is allowed to access maps, so check rcu_read_lock_held in
 * all three functions.
 */
BPF_CALL_2(bpf_map_lookup_elem, struct bpf_map *, map, void *, key)
{
	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
	return (unsigned long) map->ops->map_lookup_elem(map, key);
}

-Jakub