netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf V2 0/2] bpf: adjust uapi for devmap prior to kernel release

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:03:12 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf V2 0/2] bpf: adjust uapi for devmap prior to kernel
 release

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 03:31:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> For special type maps (e.g. devmap and cpumap) the map-value data-layout is
> a configuration interface. This is uapi 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'.
> 
> For this kind of uapi to be extensible and backward compatible, is it common
> that new members/fields (that represent a new feature) in the struct are
> initialized as zero, which indicate that the feature isn't used. This makes
> it possible to write userspace applications that are unaware of new kernel
> features, but just include latest uapi headers, zero-init struct and
> populate features it knows about.
> 
> 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.

Applied to bpf tree without this cover letter, because I don't want
folks to read above and start using kabi terminology liks this.
I've never seen a definition of kabi. I've heard redhat has something, but
I don't know what it is and really not interested to find out.
Studying amd64 psABI, sparc psABI, gABI was enough of time sink.
When folks use ABI they really mean binary. 
Old binaries that use devmap_val will work as-is with newer kernel.
There is no binary breakage due to devmap_val.
Whereas what you describe above is what will happen if something gets
recompiled. It's an API quirk. And arguable not an UAPI breakage.
UAPI structs have to initialized.
There is a struct and there is initializer for it.
Like if you did 'spinlock_t lock;' and it got broken with new kernel
it's programmers fault. It's not uapi and certainly not abi issue.
DEFINE_SPINLOCK() should have been used.
Same thing with user space.
'struct bpf_devmap_val' would be ok from uapi pov even with -1.
It's just much more convenient to have zero init. Less error prone, etc.