netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: avoid using/returning file descriptor value zero

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: <20200609115513.2422b53a@carbon>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:55:13 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: avoid using/returning file descriptor
 value zero

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:34:10 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 06:51:12PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > Make it easier to handle UAPI/kABI extensions by avoid BPF using/returning
> > file descriptor value zero. Use this in recent devmap extension to keep
> > older applications compatible with newer kernels.
> > 
> > For special type maps (e.g. devmap and cpumap) the map-value data-layout is
> > a configuration interface. This is a kernel Application Binary Interface
> > (kABI) that can only be tail extended. Thus, new members (and thus features)
> > can only be added to the end of this structure, and the kernel uses the
> > map->value_size from userspace to determine feature set 'version'.  
> 
> please drop these kabi references. As far as I know kabi is a redhat invention
> and I'm not even sure what exactly it means.
> 'struct bpf_devmap_val' is uapi. No need to invent new names for existing concept.

Sure I can call it UAPI.

I was alluding to the difference between API and ABI, but it doesn't matter.
For the record, Red Hat didn't invent ABI (Application Binary Interface):
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_binary_interface


> > The recent extension of devmap with a bpf_prog.fd requires end-user to
> > supply the file-descriptor value minus-1 to communicate that the features
> > isn't used. This isn't compatible with the described kABI extension model.  
> 
> non-zero prog_fd requirement exists already in bpf syscall. It's not recent.
> So I don't think patch 1 is appropriate at this point. Certainly not
> for bpf tree. We can argue about it usefulness when bpf-next reopens.
> For now I think patches 2 and 3 are good to go.

Great.

> Don't delete 'enum sk_action' in patch 2 though.

Sorry, yes, that was a mistake.

> The rest looks good to me.

Thanks!
-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer