netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Allow using bpf_sk_storage in FENTRY/FEXIT/RAW

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: <CACYkzJ4Jdabs5ot7TnHmeq2x+ULhuPuw8wwbR2gQzi22c3N_7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:01:12 +0100
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Allow using bpf_sk_storage in FENTRY/FEXIT/RAW_TP

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:32 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:14:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch enables the FENTRY/FEXIT/RAW_TP tracing program to use
> > > > > the bpf_sk_storage_(get|delete) helper, so those tracing programs
> > > > > can access the sk's bpf_local_storage and the later selftest
> > > > > will show some examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > The bpf_sk_storage is currently used in bpf-tcp-cc, tc,
> > > > > cg sockops...etc which is running either in softirq or
> > > > > task context.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch adds bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing_proto and
> > > > > bpf_sk_storage_delete_tracing_proto.  They will check
> > > > > in runtime that the helpers can only be called when serving
> > > > > softirq or running in a task context.  That should enable
> > > > > most common tracing use cases on sk.
> > > > >
> > > > > During the load time, the new tracing_allowed() function
> > > > > will ensure the tracing prog using the bpf_sk_storage_(get|delete)
> > > > > helper is not tracing any *sk_storage*() function itself.
> > > > > The sk is passed as "void *" when calling into bpf_local_storage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  include/net/bpf_sk_storage.h |  2 +
> > > > >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c     |  5 +++
> > > > >  net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c    | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > +       switch (prog->expected_attach_type) {
> > > > > +       case BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP:
> > > > > +               /* bpf_sk_storage has no trace point */
> > > > > +               return true;
> > > > > +       case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
> > > > > +       case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
> > > > > +               btf_vmlinux = bpf_get_btf_vmlinux();
> > > > > +               btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
> > > > > +               t = btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, btf_id);
> > > > > +               tname = btf_name_by_offset(btf_vmlinux, t->name_off);
> > > > > +               return !strstr(tname, "sk_storage");
> > > >
> > > > I'm always feeling uneasy about substring checks... Also, KP just
> > > > fixed the issue with string-based checks for LSM. Can we use a
> > > > BTF_ID_SET of blacklisted functions instead?
> > > KP one is different.  It accidentally whitelist-ed more than it should.
> > >
> > > It is a blacklist here.  It is actually cleaner and safer to blacklist
> > > all functions with "sk_storage" and too pessimistic is fine here.
> >
> > Fine for whom? Prefix check would be half-bad, but substring check is
> > horrible. Suddenly "task_storage" (and anything related) would be also
> > blacklisted. Let's do a prefix check at least.
> >
>
> Agree, prefix check sounds like a good idea. But, just doing a quick
> grep seems like it will need at least bpf_sk_storage and sk_storage to
> catch everything.

Is there any reason we are not using BTF ID sets and an allow list similar
to bpf_d_path helper? (apart from the obvious inconvenience of
needing to update the set in the kernel)