netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next V1] bpf: devmap dynamic map-value area based on BTF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200609141912.34b70975@carbon>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:19:12 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V1] bpf: devmap dynamic map-value area based on
 BTF

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:58:26 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:23 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Great. If we can remove this requirement of -1 init (and let zero mean
> > feature isn't used), then I'm all for exposing expose in uapi/bpf.h.  
> 
> Not having it in bpf.h doesn't magically make it invisible.
> It's uapi because user space C sources rely on its fixed format.
> vmlinux.h contains all kernel types. both uapi and kernel internal.
> devmap selftest taking uapi 'struct bpf_devmap_val' from vmlinux.h is
> an awful hack.
> I prefer to keep vmlinux.h usage to bpf programs only.
> User space C code should interface with kernel via proper uapi headers.
> When vmlinux.h is used by bpf C program it's completely different from
> user space C code doing the same, because llvm emits relocations for
> bpf prog and libbpf adjusts them.
> So doing 'foo->bar' in bpf C is specific to target kernel, whereas
> user C code 'foo->bar' is a hard constant which bakes it into uapi
> that kernel has to keep backwards compatible.

Thank you for taking time to explain this.
Much appreciated, I agree with everything above.


> If in some distant future we teach both gcc and clang to do bpf-style
> relocations for x86 and teach ld.so to adjust them then we can dream
> about very differently looking kernel/user interfaces.
> Right now any struct used by user C code and passed into kernel is uapi.

I like this future vision.

I guess this patch is premature, as it operates in the same problem
space. It tried to address uapi flexbility, by letting userspace define
the uapi layout via BTF at map_create() time, and let kernel-side
validate BTF-info and restrict possible struct member names, which are
remapped to offsets inside the kernel.

I'll instead wait for the future...

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