netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YGuIAWA4kRJCfI4U@krava>
Date:   Mon, 5 Apr 2021 23:58:25 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Allow trampoline re-attach

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:21:55AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:24:12PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> > >  	if (!prog->aux->dst_trampoline && !tgt_prog) {
> >> > > -		err = -ENOENT;
> >> > > -		goto out_unlock;
> >> > > +		/*
> >> > > +		 * Allow re-attach for tracing programs, if it's currently
> >> > > +		 * linked, bpf_trampoline_link_prog will fail.
> >> > > +		 */
> >> > > +		if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) {
> >> > > +			err = -ENOENT;
> >> > > +			goto out_unlock;
> >> > > +		}
> >> > > +		if (!prog->aux->attach_btf) {
> >> > > +			err = -EINVAL;
> >> > > +			goto out_unlock;
> >> > > +		}
> >> > 
> >> > I'm wondering about the two different return codes here. Under what
> >> > circumstances will aux->attach_btf be NULL, and why is that not an
> >> > ENOENT error? :)
> >> 
> >> The feature makes sense to me as well.
> >> I don't quite see how it would get here with attach_btf == NULL.
> >> Maybe WARN_ON then?
> >
> > right, that should be always there
> >
> >> Also if we're allowing re-attach this way why exclude PROG_EXT and LSM?
> >> 
> >
> > I was enabling just what I needed for the test, which is so far
> > the only use case.. I'll see if I can enable that for all of them
> 
> How would that work? For PROG_EXT we clear the destination on the first
> attach (to avoid keeping a ref on it), so re-attach can only be done
> with an explicit target (which already works just fine)...

right, I'm just looking on it ;-) extensions already seem allow for that,
I'll check LSM

jirka