netdev - Re: [PATCH 03/11] bpf: Add 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZivgf2r+tAnY4+cMTKN3dCb_M-PyVWL_ZSa7SY=x2efA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:06:49 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Brendan Gregg <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] bpf: Add btf_ids object

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:05 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Adding support to generate .BTF_ids section that would
> > hold various BTF IDs list for verifier.
> >
> > Adding macros help to define lists of BTF IDs placed in
> > .BTF_ids section. They are initially filled with zeros
> > (during compilation) and resolved later during the
> > linking phase by btfid tool.
> >
> > Following defines list of one BTF ID that is accessible
> > within kernel code as bpf_skb_output_btf_ids array.
> >
> >   extern int bpf_skb_output_btf_ids[];
> >
> >   BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_skb_output_btf_ids)
> >   BTF_ID(struct, sk_buff)
> >
> > Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h |  4 ++
> >  kernel/bpf/Makefile               |  2 +-
> >  kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c              |  3 ++
> >  kernel/bpf/btf_ids.h              | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c
> >  create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/btf_ids.h
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > +/*
> > + * Following macros help to define lists of BTF IDs placed
> > + * in .BTF_ids section. They are initially filled with zeros
> > + * (during compilation) and resolved later during the
> > + * linking phase by btfid tool.
> > + *
> > + * Any change in list layout must be reflected in btfid
> > + * tool logic.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define SECTION ".BTF_ids"
>
> nit: SECTION is super generic and non-greppable. BTF_IDS_SECTION?
>
> > +
> > +#define ____BTF_ID(symbol)                             \
> > +asm(                                                   \
> > +".pushsection " SECTION ",\"a\";               \n"     \
>
> section should be also read-only? Either immediately here, of btfid
> tool should mark it? Unless I missed that it's already doing it :)
>
> > +".local " #symbol " ;                          \n"     \
> > +".type  " #symbol ", @object;                  \n"     \
> > +".size  " #symbol ", 4;                        \n"     \
> > +#symbol ":                                     \n"     \
> > +".zero 4                                       \n"     \
> > +".popsection;                                  \n");
> > +
> > +#define __BTF_ID(...) \
> > +       ____BTF_ID(__VA_ARGS__)
>
> why varargs, if it's always a single argument? Or it's one of those
> macro black magic things were it works only in this particular case,
> but not others?
>
>
> > +
> > +#define __ID(prefix) \
> > +       __PASTE(prefix, __COUNTER__)
> > +
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * The BTF_ID defines unique symbol for each ID pointing
> > + * to 4 zero bytes.
> > + */
> > +#define BTF_ID(prefix, name) \
> > +       __BTF_ID(__ID(__BTF_ID__##prefix##__##name##__))
> > +
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * The BTF_ID_LIST macro defines pure (unsorted) list
> > + * of BTF IDs, with following layout:
> > + *
> > + * BTF_ID_LIST(list1)
> > + * BTF_ID(type1, name1)
> > + * BTF_ID(type2, name2)
> > + *
> > + * list1:
> > + * __BTF_ID__type1__name1__1:
> > + * .zero 4
> > + * __BTF_ID__type2__name2__2:
> > + * .zero 4
> > + *
> > + */
> > +#define BTF_ID_LIST(name)                              \
>
> nit: btw, you call it a list here, but btfids tool talks about
> "sorts". Maybe stick to consistent naming. Either "list" or "set"
> seems to be appropriate. Set implies a sorted aspect a bit more, IMO.
>
> > +asm(                                                   \
> > +".pushsection " SECTION ",\"a\";               \n"     \
> > +".global " #name ";                            \n"     \
>
> I was expecting to see reserved 4 bytes for list size? I also couldn't
> find where btfids tool prepends it. From what I could understand, it
> just assumed the first 4 bytes are the length prefix? Sorry if I'm
> slow...

Never mind, this is different from whitelisting you do in patch #8.
But now I'm curious how this list symbol gets its size correctly
calculated?..

>
>
> > +#name ":;                                      \n"     \
> > +".popsection;                                  \n");
> > +
> > +#endif
> > --
> > 2.25.4
> >