netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF programs

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: <20200710170010.GC7487@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:00:10 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF programs

Em Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 08:21:13AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> >
> > +1, I think augmenting mid-term would be the best given check_sleepable_blacklist()
> > is rather a very fragile workaround^hack and it's also a generic lsm/sec hooks issue
> 
> I tried to make that crystal clear back in march during bpf virtual conference.
> imo whitelist is just as fragile as blacklist. Underlying
> implementation can change.
> 
> > (at least for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM type & for the sake of documenting it for other LSMs).
> > Perhaps there are function attributes that could be used and later retrieved via BTF?
> 
> Even if we convince gcc folks to add another function attribute it
> won't appear in dwarf.

Warning, hack ahead!

Perhaps we could do that with some sort of convention, i.e. define some
type and make a function returning that type to have the desired
attribute?

I.e.

typedef __attribute__foo__int int;

__attribute__foo__int function_bla(...)
{
}

?

> So we won't be able to convert it to BTF in pahole.
> Looking at how we failed to extend address_space() attribute to
> support existing __rcu
> and __user annotations I don't have high hopes of achieving annotations
> via compiler (either gcc or clang). So plan B is to engage with sparse folks and
> make it emit BTF with __rcu, __user and other annotations.

-- 

- Arnaldo