netdev - Re: [PATCH 12/14] bpf: Add trampolines to kallsyms

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]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZEVOZ36xx882WO30ReG=jkazug-gmWnXhxmA8Ka6PuhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:33:49 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] bpf: Add trampolines to kallsyms

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:10 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:51:27AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:43 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Adding trampolines to kallsyms. It's displayed as
> > >   bpf_trampoline_<ID> [bpf]
> > >
> > > where ID is the BTF id of the trampoline function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/bpf.h     |  2 ++
> > >  kernel/bpf/trampoline.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > index 7a4626c8e747..b91bac10d3ea 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -502,6 +502,7 @@ struct bpf_trampoline {
> > >         /* Executable image of trampoline */
> > >         void *image;
> > >         u64 selector;
> > > +       struct bpf_ksym ksym;
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  #define BPF_DISPATCHER_MAX 48 /* Fits in 2048B */
> > > @@ -573,6 +574,7 @@ struct bpf_image {
> > >  #define BPF_IMAGE_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct bpf_image))
> > >  bool is_bpf_image_address(unsigned long address);
> > >  void *bpf_image_alloc(void);
> > > +void bpf_image_ksym_add(void *data, struct bpf_ksym *ksym);
> > >  /* Called only from code, so there's no need for stubs. */
> > >  void bpf_ksym_add(struct bpf_ksym *ksym);
> > >  void bpf_ksym_del(struct bpf_ksym *ksym);
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > index 6b264a92064b..1ee29907cbe5 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > @@ -96,6 +96,15 @@ bool is_bpf_image_address(unsigned long addr)
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +void bpf_image_ksym_add(void *data, struct bpf_ksym *ksym)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct bpf_image *image = container_of(data, struct bpf_image, data);
> > > +
> > > +       ksym->start = (unsigned long) image;
> > > +       ksym->end = ksym->start + PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> > this seems wrong, use BPF_IMAGE_SIZE instead of PAGE_SIZE?
>
> BPF_IMAGE_SIZE is the size of the data portion of the image,
> which is PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct bpf_image)
>
> here we want to account the whole size = data + tree node (struct bpf_image)

Why? Seems like the main use case for this is resolve IP to symbol
(function, dispatcher, trampoline, bpf program, etc). For this
purpose, you only need part of trampoline actually containing
executable code?

Also, for bpf_dispatcher in later patch, you are not including struct
bpf_dispatcher itself, you only include image, so if the idea is to
include all the code and supporting data structures, that already
failed for bpf_dispatcher (and can't even work for that case, due to
dispatcher and image not being part of the same blob of memory, so
you'll need two symbols).

So I guess it would be good to be clear on why we include these
symbols and not mix data and executable parts.

>
> >
> > > +       bpf_ksym_add(ksym);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_lookup(u64 key)
> > >  {
> > >         struct bpf_trampoline *tr;
> > > @@ -131,6 +140,7 @@ struct bpf_trampoline *bpf_trampoline_lookup(u64 key)
> > >         for (i = 0; i < BPF_TRAMP_MAX; i++)
> > >                 INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&tr->progs_hlist[i]);
> > >         tr->image = image;
> > > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(&tr->ksym.lnode);
> > >  out:
> > >         mutex_unlock(&trampoline_mutex);
> > >         return tr;
> > > @@ -267,6 +277,15 @@ static enum bpf_tramp_prog_type bpf_attach_type_to_tramp(enum bpf_attach_type t)
> > >         }
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static void bpf_trampoline_kallsyms_add(struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct bpf_ksym *ksym = &tr->ksym;
> > > +
> > > +       snprintf(ksym->name, KSYM_NAME_LEN, "bpf_trampoline_%llu",
> > > +                tr->key & ((u64) (1LU << 32) - 1));
> >
> > why the 32-bit truncation? also, wouldn't it be more trivial as (u32)tr->key?
>
> tr->key can have the target prog id in upper 32 bits,

True, but not clear why it's bad? It's not a security concern, because
those IDs are already exposed (you can dump them from bpftool). On the
other hand, by cutting out part of key, you make symbols potentially
ambiguous, with different trampolines marked with the same name in
kallsyms, which is just going to be confusing to users/tools.

> I'll try to use the casting as you suggest
>
> >
> > > +       bpf_image_ksym_add(tr->image, &tr->ksym);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  int bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >  {
> > >         enum bpf_tramp_prog_type kind;
> > > @@ -311,6 +330,8 @@ int bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >         if (err) {
> > >                 hlist_del(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
> > >                 tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> > > +       } else if (cnt == 0) {
> > > +               bpf_trampoline_kallsyms_add(tr);
> >
> > You didn't handle BPF_TRAMP_REPLACE case above.
>
> ugh, right.. will add
>
> >
> > Also this if (err) { ... } else if (cnt == 0) { } pattern is a bit
> > convoluted. How about:
> >
> > if (err) {
> >    ... whatever ...
> >    goto out;
> > }
> > if (cnt == 0) { ... }
>
> yep, that's better
>
> >
> > >         }
> > >  out:
> > >         mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
> > > @@ -336,6 +357,8 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >         }
> > >         hlist_del(&prog->aux->tramp_hlist);
> > >         tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> > > +       if (!(tr->progs_cnt[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY] + tr->progs_cnt[BPF_TRAMP_FEXIT]))
> > > +               bpf_ksym_del(&tr->ksym);
> >
> > same, BPF_TRAMP_REPLACE case. I'd also introduce cnt for consistency
> > with bpf_trampoline_link_prog?
>
> ok, thanks a lot for comments

sure, you are welcome :)

>
> jirka
>