netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/19] bpf: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a5255338-94e8-3f4b-518e-e7f7146f69f2@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:15:14 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/19] bpf: add bpf_map iterator



On 4/28/20 5:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/28/20 5:37 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> +    prog = bpf_iter_get_prog(seq, sizeof(struct bpf_iter_seq_map_info),
>>> +                 &meta.session_id, &meta.seq_num,
>>> +                 v == (void *)0);
>>  From looking at seq_file.c, when will show() be called with "v == NULL"?
>>
> 
> that v == NULL here and the whole verifier change just to allow NULL...
> may be use seq_num as an indicator of the last elem instead?
> Like seq_num with upper bit set to indicate that it's last?

We could. But then verifier won't have an easy way to verify that.
For example, the above is expected:

      int prog(struct bpf_map *map, u64 seq_num) {
         if (seq_num >> 63)
           return 0;
         ... map->id ...
         ... map->user_cnt ...
      }

But if user writes

      int prog(struct bpf_map *map, u64 seq_num) {
          ... map->id ...
          ... map->user_cnt ...
      }

verifier won't be easy to conclude inproper map pointer tracing
here and in the above map->id, map->user_cnt will cause
exceptions and they will silently get value 0.

I do have another potential use case for this ptr_to_btf_id_or_null,
e.g., for tcp6, instead of pointer casting, I could have bpf_prog
like
     int prog(..., struct tcp6_sock *tcp_sk,
              struct timewait_sock *tw_sk, struct request_sock *req_sk) {
         if (tcp_sk) { /* dump tcp_sk ... */ }
         if (tw_sk) { /* dump tw_sk ... */ }
         if (req_sk) { /* dump req_sk ... */ }
     }
The kernel infrastructure will ensure at any time only one
of tcp_sk/tw_sk/req_sk is valid and the other two is NULL.