netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: allow for map-in-map with dynamic inner array map entries

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 20:35:15 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: allow for map-in-map with dynamic
 inner array map entries

On 10/9/20 7:42 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 7:13 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>   static int percpu_array_map_btf_id;
>>   const struct bpf_map_ops percpu_array_map_ops = {
>>          .map_meta_equal = bpf_map_meta_equal,
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> index 1110ecd7d1f3..519bf867f065 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ static struct bpf_map *find_and_alloc_map(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>          ops = bpf_map_types[type];
>>          if (!ops)
>>                  return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> -
>> +       if (ops->map_swap_ops)
>> +               ops = ops->map_swap_ops(attr);
> 
> I'm afraid that this can cause quite a lot of confusion down the road.
> 
> Wouldn't designating -EOPNOTSUPP return code from map_gen_lookup() and
> not inlining in that case as if map_gen_lookup() wasn't even defined
> be a much smaller and more local (semantically) change that achieves
> exactly the same thing? Doesn't seem like switching from u32 to int
> for return value would be a big inconvenience for existing
> implementations of inlining callbacks, right?

I was originally thinking about it, but then decided not to take this path,
for example the ops->map_gen_lookup() patching code has sanity checks for
the u32 return code on whether we patched 0 or too many instructions, so
if there is anything funky going on in one of the map_gen_lookup() that
we'd get a negative code, for example, I don't want to just skip and not
have the verifier bark loudly with "bpf verifier is misconfigured", also
didn't want to make the logic inside fixup_bpf_calls() even more complex,
so the patch here felt simpler & more straight forward to me.

Thanks,
Daniel