| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZ_TnCdvTucUpr1CRiGqnf7GZfdyXmszToTTLYyQxbk4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 11:52:08 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/21] bpf: implement bpf_seq_read() for bpf iterator
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:39 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>
> bpf iterator uses seq_file to provide a lossless
> way to transfer data to user space. But we want to call
> bpf program after all objects have been traversed, and
> bpf program may write additional data to the
> seq_file buffer. The current seq_read() does not work
> for this use case.
>
> Besides allowing stop() function to write to the buffer,
> the bpf_seq_read() also fixed the buffer size to one page.
> If any single call of show() or stop() will emit data
> more than one page to cause overflow, -E2BIG error code
> will be returned to user space.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> ---
This loop is much simpler and more streamlined now, thanks a lot! I
think it's correct, see below about one confusing (but apparently
correct) bit, though. Either way:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
> index 0542a243b78c..f198597b0ea4 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,124 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(targets_mutex);
> /* protect bpf_iter_link changes */
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(link_mutex);
>
> +/* bpf_seq_read, a customized and simpler version for bpf iterator.
> + * no_llseek is assumed for this file.
> + * The following are differences from seq_read():
> + * . fixed buffer size (PAGE_SIZE)
> + * . assuming no_llseek
> + * . stop() may call bpf program, handling potential overflow there
> + */
> +static ssize_t bpf_seq_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t size,
> + loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + struct seq_file *seq = file->private_data;
> + size_t n, offs, copied = 0;
> + int err = 0;
> + void *p;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&seq->lock);
> +
> + if (!seq->buf) {
> + seq->size = PAGE_SIZE;
> + seq->buf = kmalloc(seq->size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!seq->buf) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto done;
oh, thank you for converting to all lower-case label names! :)
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (seq->count) {
> + n = min(seq->count, size);
> + err = copy_to_user(buf, seq->buf + seq->from, n);
> + if (err) {
> + err = -EFAULT;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + seq->count -= n;
> + seq->from += n;
> + copied = n;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + seq->from = 0;
> + p = seq->op->start(seq, &seq->index);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p))
> + goto stop;
if start() returns IS_ERR(p), stop(p) below won't produce any output
(because BPF program is called only for p == NULL), so we'll just
return 0 with no error, do I interpret the code correctly? I think
seq_file's read actually returns PTR_ERR(p) as a result in this case.
so I think you need err = PTR_ERR(p); before goto stop here?
> +
> + err = seq->op->show(seq, p);
> + if (err > 0) {
> + seq->count = 0;
> + } else if (err < 0 || seq_has_overflowed(seq)) {
> + if (!err)
> + err = -E2BIG;
> + seq->count = 0;
> + seq->op->stop(seq, p);
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + while (1) {
> + loff_t pos = seq->index;
> +
> + offs = seq->count;
> + p = seq->op->next(seq, p, &seq->index);
> + if (pos == seq->index) {
> + pr_info_ratelimited("buggy seq_file .next function %ps "
> + "did not updated position index\n",
> + seq->op->next);
> + seq->index++;
> + }
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(p);
> + break;
> + }
> + if (seq->count >= size)
> + break;
> +
> + err = seq->op->show(seq, p);
> + if (err > 0) {
> + seq->count = offs;
> + } else if (err < 0 || seq_has_overflowed(seq)) {
> + seq->count = offs;
> + if (!err)
> + err = -E2BIG;
nit: this -E2BIG is set unconditionally even for 2nd+ show(). This
will work, because it will get ignored on next iteration, but I think
it will be much more obvious if written as:
if (!err && offs = 0)
err = -E2BIG;
It took me few re-readings of the code I'm pretty familiar with
already to realize that this is ok.
I had to write the below piece to realize that this is fine :) Just
leaving here just in case you find it useful:
else if (err < 0 || seq_has_overflowed(seq)) {
if (!err && offs == 0) /* overflow in first show() output */
err = -E2BIG;
if (err) { /* overflow in first show() or real error happened */
seq->count = 0; /* not strictly necessary, but shows that we
are truncating output */
seq->op->stop(seq, p);
goto done; /* done will return err */
}
/* no error and overflow for 2nd+ show(), roll back output and stop */
seq->count = offs;
break;
}
> + if (offs == 0) {
> + seq->op->stop(seq, p);
> + goto done;
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +stop:
> + offs = seq->count;
> + /* bpf program called if !p */
> + seq->op->stop(seq, p);
> + if (!p && seq_has_overflowed(seq)) {
> + seq->count = offs;
> + if (offs == 0) {
> + err = -E2BIG;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + n = min(seq->count, size);
> + err = copy_to_user(buf, seq->buf, n);
> + if (err) {
> + err = -EFAULT;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + copied = n;
> + seq->count -= n;
> + seq->from = n;
> +done:
> + if (!copied)
> + copied = err;
> + else
> + *ppos += copied;
> + mutex_unlock(&seq->lock);
> + return copied;
> +}
> +
> int bpf_iter_reg_target(struct bpf_iter_reg *reg_info)
> {
> struct bpf_iter_target_info *tinfo;
> --
> 2.24.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists