netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP

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: <20200320103530.2853c573@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:35:30 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing
 program when attaching XDP

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:48:10 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:13:13 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:  
> >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> >> 
> >> While it is currently possible for userspace to specify that an existing
> >> XDP program should not be replaced when attaching to an interface, there is
> >> no mechanism to safely replace a specific XDP program with another.
> >> 
> >> This patch adds a new netlink attribute, IFLA_XDP_EXPECTED_FD, which can be
> >> set along with IFLA_XDP_FD. If set, the kernel will check that the program
> >> currently loaded on the interface matches the expected one, and fail the
> >> operation if it does not. This corresponds to a 'cmpxchg' memory operation.
> >> 
> >> A new companion flag, XDP_FLAGS_EXPECT_FD, is also added to explicitly
> >> request checking of the EXPECTED_FD attribute. This is needed for userspace
> >> to discover whether the kernel supports the new attribute.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>  
> >
> > I didn't know we wanted to go ahead with this...  
> 
> Well, I'm aware of the bpf_link discussion, obviously. Not sure what's
> happening with that, though. So since this is a straight-forward
> extension of the existing API, that doesn't carry a high implementation
> cost, I figured I'd just go ahead with this. Doesn't mean we can't have
> something similar in bpf_link as well, of course.

I'm not really in the loop, but from what I overheard - I think the
bpf_link may be targeting something non-networking first.

> > If we do please run this thru checkpatch, set .strict_start_type,  
> 
> Will do.
> 
> > and make the expected fd unsigned. A negative expected fd makes no
> > sense.  
> 
> A negative expected_fd corresponds to setting the UPDATE_IF_NOEXIST
> flag. I guess you could argue that since we have that flag, setting a
> negative expected_fd is not strictly needed. However, I thought it was
> weird to have a "this is what I expect" API that did not support
> expressing "I expect no program to be attached".

I see it now, not entirely unreasonable.

Why did you choose to use the FD rather than passing prog id directly?
Is the application unlikely to have program ID?