| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CA+khW7hJV5iwmwnTNL5Uw07szfjtMoqumGO9BVhAyddevH3hMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:04:42 -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 v2 5/6] bpf: Introduce bpf_this_cpu_ptr()
Thanks for taking a look!
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 1:09 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:35 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add bpf_this_cpu_ptr() to help access percpu var on this cpu. This
> > helper always returns a valid pointer, therefore no need to check
> > returned value for NULL. Also note that all programs run with
> > preemption disabled, which means that the returned pointer is stable
> > during all the execution of the program.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> looks good, few small things, but otherwise:
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
[...]
> >
> > /* eBPF function prototype used by verifier to allow BPF_CALLs from eBPF programs
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index d0ec94d5bdbf..e7ca91c697ed 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -3612,6 +3612,19 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > * bpf_per_cpu_ptr() must check the returned value.
> > * Return
> > * A generic pointer pointing to the kernel percpu variable on *cpu*.
> > + *
> > + * void *bpf_this_cpu_ptr(const void *percpu_ptr)
> > + * Description
> > + * Take a pointer to a percpu ksym, *percpu_ptr*, and return a
> > + * pointer to the percpu kernel variable on this cpu. See the
> > + * description of 'ksym' in **bpf_per_cpu_ptr**\ ().
> > + *
> > + * bpf_this_cpu_ptr() has the same semantic as this_cpu_ptr() in
> > + * the kernel. Different from **bpf_per_cpu_ptr**\ (), it would
> > + * never return NULL.
> > + * Return
> > + * A generic pointer pointing to the kernel percpu variable on
>
> what's "a generic pointer"? is it as opposed to sk_buff pointer or something?
>
Ack. "A pointer" should be good enough. I wrote "generic pointer"
because the per_cpu_ptr() in kernel code is a macro, whose returned
value is a typed pointer, IIUC. But here we are missing the type. This
is another difference between this helper and per_cpu_ptr(). But this
may not matter.
> > /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which helper
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index a702600ff581..e070d2abc405 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -5016,8 +5016,10 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn
> > regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL;
> > regs[BPF_REG_0].id = ++env->id_gen;
> > regs[BPF_REG_0].mem_size = meta.mem_size;
> > - } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_BTF_ID_OR_NULL) {
> > + } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_BTF_ID_OR_NULL ||
> > + fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_BTF_ID) {
> > const struct btf_type *t;
> > + bool not_null = fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_BTF_ID;
>
> nit: this is fine, but I'd inline it below
>
Ack.
> >
> > mark_reg_known_zero(env, regs, BPF_REG_0);
> > t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf_vmlinux, meta.ret_btf_id, NULL);
> > @@ -5034,10 +5036,12 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn
> > tname, PTR_ERR(ret));
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > - regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL;
> > + regs[BPF_REG_0].type = not_null ?
> > + PTR_TO_MEM : PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL;
> > regs[BPF_REG_0].mem_size = tsize;
> > } else {
> > - regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL;
> > + regs[BPF_REG_0].type = not_null ?
> > + PTR_TO_BTF_ID : PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL;
> > regs[BPF_REG_0].btf_id = meta.ret_btf_id;
> > }
> > } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL) {
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index d474c1530f87..466acf82a9c7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -1160,6 +1160,18 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_per_cpu_ptr_proto = {
> > .arg2_type = ARG_ANYTHING,
> > };
> >
> > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_this_cpu_ptr, const void *, percpu_ptr)
> > +{
> > + return (u64)this_cpu_ptr(percpu_ptr);
>
> see previous comment, this might trigger unnecessary compilation
> warnings on 32-bit arches
>
Ack. Will cast to "unsigned long". Thanks for catching this!
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_this_cpu_ptr_proto = {
> > + .func = bpf_this_cpu_ptr,
> > + .gpl_only = false,
> > + .ret_type = RET_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_BTF_ID,
> > + .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_PERCPU_BTF_ID,
> > +};
> > +
>
> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists