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  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]
Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 15:18:51 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: BPF sk_lookup v5 - TCP SYN and UDP 0-len flood benchmarks

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:29 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 08:19 PM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
> >>          :                      rcu_read_lock();
> >>          :                      run_array = rcu_dereference(net->bpf.run_array[NETNS_BPF_SK_LOOKUP]);
> >>     0.01 :   ffffffff817f8624:       mov    0xd68(%r12),%rsi
> >>          :                      if (run_array) {
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f862c:       test   %rsi,%rsi
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f862f:       je     ffffffff817f87a9 <__udp4_lib_lookup+0x2c9>
> >>          :                      struct bpf_sk_lookup_kern ctx = {
> >>     1.05 :   ffffffff817f8635:       xor    %eax,%eax
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8637:       mov    $0x6,%ecx
> >>     0.01 :   ffffffff817f863c:       movl   $0x110002,0x40(%rsp)
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8644:       lea    0x48(%rsp),%rdi
> >>    18.76 :   ffffffff817f8649:       rep stos %rax,%es:(%rdi)
> >>     1.12 :   ffffffff817f864c:       mov    0xc(%rsp),%eax
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8650:       mov    %ebp,0x48(%rsp)
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8654:       mov    %eax,0x44(%rsp)
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8658:       movzwl 0x10(%rsp),%eax
> >>     1.21 :   ffffffff817f865d:       mov    %ax,0x60(%rsp)
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8662:       movzwl 0x20(%rsp),%eax
> >>     0.00 :   ffffffff817f8667:       mov    %ax,0x62(%rsp)
> >>          :                      .sport          = sport,
> >>          :                      .dport          = dport,
> >>          :                      };
> >
> > Such heavy hit to zero init 56-byte structure is surprising.
> > There are two 4-byte holes in this struct. You can try to pack it and
> > make sure that 'rep stoq' is used instead of 'rep stos' (8 byte at a time vs 4).
>
> Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try.
>
> > Long term we should probably stop doing *_kern style of ctx passing
> > into bpf progs.
> > We have BTF, CO-RE and freplace now. This old style of memset *_kern and manual
> > ctx conversion has performance implications and annoying copy-paste of ctx
> > conversion routines.
> > For this particular case instead of introducing udp4_lookup_run_bpf()
> > and copying registers into stack we could have used freplace of
> > udp4_lib_lookup2.
> > More verifier work needed, of course.
> > My main point that existing approach "lets prep args for bpf prog to
> > run" that is used
> > pretty much in every bpf hook is no longer necessary.
>
> Andrii has also suggested leveraging BTF [0], but to expose the *_kern
> struct directly to BPF prog instead of emitting ctx access instructions.
>
> What I'm curious about is if we get rid of prepping args and ctx
> conversion, then how do we limit what memory BPF prog can access?
>
> Say, I'm passing a struct sock * to my BPF prog. If it's not a tracing
> prog, then I don't want it to have access to everything that is
> reachable from struct sock *. This is where this approach currently
> breaks down for me.

Why do you want to limit it?
Time after time we keep extending structs in uapi/bpf.h because new
use cases are coming up. Just let the prog access everything.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists