netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] libbpf: Propagate EPERM to caller on program load

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, 8 Nov 2019 15:17:58 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        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 v2 3/6] libbpf: Propagate EPERM to caller on
 program load

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:50:43PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:33 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> >
> > When loading an eBPF program, libbpf overrides the return code for EPERM
> > errors instead of returning it to the caller. This makes it hard to figure
> > out what went wrong on load.
> >
> > In particular, EPERM is returned when the system rlimit is too low to lock
> > the memory required for the BPF program. Previously, this was somewhat
> > obscured because the rlimit error would be hit on map creation (which does
> > return it correctly). However, since maps can now be reused, object load
> > can proceed all the way to loading programs without hitting the error;
> > propagating it even in this case makes it possible for the caller to react
> > appropriately (and, e.g., attempt to raise the rlimit before retrying).
> >
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index cea61b2ec9d3..582c0fd16697 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -3721,7 +3721,7 @@ load_program(struct bpf_program *prog, struct bpf_insn *insns, int insns_cnt,
> >                 free(log_buf);
> >                 goto retry_load;
> >         }
> > -       ret = -LIBBPF_ERRNO__LOAD;
> > +       ret = (errno == EPERM) ? -errno : -LIBBPF_ERRNO__LOAD;

ouch. so libbpf was supressing all errnos for loading and that was a commit
from 2015. No wonder it's hard to debug. I grepped every where I could and it
doesn't look like anyone is using this code. There are other codes that can
come from sys_bpf(prog_load). Not sure why such decision was made back then. I
guess noone was really paying attention. I think we better propagate all codes.
I don't see why EPERM should be special.