netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 04/16] net: Add BPF_XDP_EGRESS as a bpf_attach

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: <87lfml69w0.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 01:49:03 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Prashant Bhole <prashantbhole.linux@...il.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        David Ahern <dahern@...italocean.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 04/16] net: Add BPF_XDP_EGRESS as a bpf_attach_type

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Looks like there is indeed a bug in prog_type_ext handling code that
>> >> > is doing
>> >> > env->ops = bpf_verifier_ops[tgt_prog->type];
>> >> > I'm not sure whether the verifier can simply add:
>> >> > prog->expected_attach_type = tgt_prog->expected_attach_type;
>> >> > and be done with it.
>> >> > Likely yes, since expected_attach_type must be zero at that point
>> >> > that is enforced by bpf_prog_load_check_attach().
>> >> > So I suspect it's a single line fix.
>> >>
>> >> Not quite: the check in bpf_tracing_prog_attach() that enforces
>> >> prog->expected_attach_type==0 also needs to go. So 5 lines :)
>> >
>> > prog_ext's expected_attach_type needs to stay zero.
>> > It needs to be inherited from tgt prog. Hence one line:
>> > prog->expected_attach_type = tgt_prog->expected_attach_type;
>> 
>> Not sure I follow you here? I ended up with the patch below - without
>> the first hunk I can't attach freplace funcs to an xdp egress prog
>> (since the expected_attach_type will have been propagated from
>> verification time), and so that check will fail. Or am I missing
>> something?
>> 
>> -Toke
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> index d85f37239540..40c3103c7233 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> @@ -2381,10 +2381,6 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>                 }
>>                 break;
>>         case BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT:
>> -               if (prog->expected_attach_type != 0) {
>> -                       err = -EINVAL;
>> -                       goto out_put_prog;
>> -               }
>>                 break;
>
> ahh. that extra check.
> I think it's better to keep it for extra safety.
> Here all expected_attach_type have clear checks depending on prog_type.
> There is no other place where it's that obvious.
> The verifier does similar thing earlier, but it's not that clear.
> I think the better fix would to set expected_attach_type = 0 for PROG_TYPE_EXT
> at the end of do_check, since we're overriding this field temporarily
> during verification.

OK, sure, can do. I do agree it's better to keep the check. I'll send a
proper patch tomorrow, then.

As far as a adding a selftest for this, I think the most natural thing
would be to add it on top of David's tests for xdp_egress, since that's
what hit this - would you be OK with that? And if so, should I send the
main patch straight away and hold off on the selftest, or should I split
them, or hold off on the whole thing?

-Toke