netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] libbpf: add 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:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:16:55 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kernel-team@...com,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] libbpf: add bpf_link pinning/unpinning

Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> writes:

> With bpf_link abstraction supported by kernel explicitly, add
> pinning/unpinning API for links. Also allow to create (open) bpf_link from BPF
> FS file.
>
> This API allows to have an "ephemeral" FD-based BPF links (like raw tracepoint
> or fexit/freplace attachments) surviving user process exit, by pinning them in
> a BPF FS, which is an important use case for long-running BPF programs.
>
> As part of this, expose underlying FD for bpf_link. While legacy bpf_link's
> might not have a FD associated with them (which will be expressed as
> a bpf_link with fd=-1), kernel's abstraction is based around FD-based usage,
> so match it closely. This, subsequently, allows to have a generic
> pinning/unpinning API for generalized bpf_link. For some types of bpf_links
> kernel might not support pinning, in which case bpf_link__pin() will return
> error.
>
> With FD being part of generic bpf_link, also get rid of bpf_link_fd in favor
> of using vanialla bpf_link.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |   5 ++
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |   5 ++
>  3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 996162801f7a..f8c4042e5855 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -6931,6 +6931,8 @@ int bpf_prog_load_xattr(const struct bpf_prog_load_attr *attr,
>  struct bpf_link {
>  	int (*detach)(struct bpf_link *link);
>  	int (*destroy)(struct bpf_link *link);
> +	char *pin_path;		/* NULL, if not pinned */
> +	int fd;			/* hook FD, -1 if not applicable */
>  	bool disconnected;
>  };
>  
> @@ -6960,26 +6962,109 @@ int bpf_link__destroy(struct bpf_link *link)
>  		err = link->detach(link);
>  	if (link->destroy)
>  		link->destroy(link);
> +	if (link->pin_path)
> +		free(link->pin_path);

This will still detach the link even if it's pinned, won't it? What's
the expectation, that the calling application just won't call
bpf_link__destroy() if it pins the link? But then it will leak memory?
Or is it just that __destroy() will close the fd, but if it's pinned the
kernel won't actually detach anything? In that case, it seems like the
function name becomes somewhat misleading?

-Toke