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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:49:21 -0700 From: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com> To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] bpf: Introduce bpf_per_cpu_ptr() On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:31 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:42 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com> wrote: > > > > > > Add bpf_per_cpu_ptr() to help bpf programs access percpu vars. > > > bpf_per_cpu_ptr() has the same semantic as per_cpu_ptr() in the kernel > > > except that it may return NULL. This happens when the cpu parameter is > > > out of range. So the caller must check the returned value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com> > > > --- > > > > The logic looks correct, few naming nits, but otherwise: > > > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> > > > > > include/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++ > > > include/linux/btf.h | 11 +++++++ > > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 +++++++++ > > > kernel/bpf/btf.c | 10 ------- > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 18 +++++++++++ > > > 6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) [...] > > btw, having bpf_this_cpu_ptr(const void *ptr) seems worthwhile as well, WDYT? > It's probably not a good idea, IMHO. How does it interact with preemption? Should we treat it as __this_cpu_ptr()? If so, I feel it's easy to be misused, if the bpf program is called in a preemptible context. Btw, is bpf programs always called with preemption disabled? How about interrupts? I haven't thought about these questions before but I think they matter as we start to have more ways for bpf programs to interact with the kernel. Best, Hao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists