netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, netns: Keep attached programs in bpf_prog

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: <87mu4smkqo.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:33:51 +0200
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...udflare.com, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, netns: Keep attached programs in bpf_prog_array

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24 PM CEST, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:59:37PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:33 PM CEST, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> >
>> > [ ... ]
>> >
>> >> @@ -93,8 +108,16 @@ static int bpf_netns_link_update_prog(struct bpf_link *link,
>> >>  		goto out_unlock;
>> >>  	}
>> >>
>> >> +	run_array = rcu_dereference_protected(net->bpf.run_array[type],
>> >> +					      lockdep_is_held(&netns_bpf_mutex));
>> >> +	if (run_array)
>> >> +		ret = bpf_prog_array_replace_item(run_array, link->prog, new_prog);
>> >> +	else
>> > When will this happen?
>>
>> This will never happen, unless there is a bug. As long as there is a
>> link attached, run_array should never be detached (null). Because it can
>> be handled gracefully, we fail the bpf(LINK_UPDATE) syscall.
>>
>> Your question makes me think that perhaps it should trigger a warning,
>> with WARN_ON_ONCE, to signal clearly to the reader that this is an
>> unexpected state.
>>
>> WDYT?
> Thanks for confirming and the explanation.
>
> If it will never happen, I would skip the "if (run_array)".  That
> will help the code reading in the future.
>
> I would not WARN also.

Best code is no code :-)

I realized that bpf_prog_array_replace_item() cannot fail either, unless
there is a bug how we compile the prog_array. So I plan to remove that
error check as well.

Thanks for feedback.