netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/7] net: sched: add lightweight update path for cls

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: <20210604175428.f77zeagqavjvdndn@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:54:28 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/7] net: sched: add lightweight update path
 for cls_bpf

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:01:13PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> This is used by BPF_LINK_UPDATE to replace the attach SCHED_CLS bpf prog
> effectively changing the classifier implementation for a given filter
> owned by a bpf_link.
> 
> Note that READ_ONCE suffices in this case as the ordering for loads from
> the filter are implicitly provided by the data dependency on BPF prog
> pointer.
> 
> On the writer side we can just use a relaxed WRITE_ONCE store to make
> sure one or the other value is visible to a reader in cls_bpf_classify.
> Lifetime is managed using RCU so bpf_prog_put path should wait until
> readers are done for old_prog.

Should those be rcu_deref and rcu_assign_pointer ?
Typically the pointer would be __rcu annotated which would be
another small change in struct cls_bpf_prog.
That would make the life time easier to follow?

> All other parties accessing the BPF prog are under RTNL protection, so
> need no changes.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>.
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/sched/cls_bpf.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_bpf.c b/net/sched/cls_bpf.c
> index bf61ffbb7fd0..f23304685c48 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_bpf.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_bpf.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>   * (C) 2013 Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
>   */
>  
> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  #include <linux/skbuff.h>
> @@ -104,11 +105,11 @@ static int cls_bpf_classify(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tcf_proto *tp,
>  			/* It is safe to push/pull even if skb_shared() */
>  			__skb_push(skb, skb->mac_len);
>  			bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb);
> -			filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(prog->filter, skb);
> +			filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(READ_ONCE(prog->filter), skb);
>  			__skb_pull(skb, skb->mac_len);
>  		} else {
>  			bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb);
> -			filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(prog->filter, skb);
> +			filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(READ_ONCE(prog->filter), skb);
>  		}
>  
>  		if (prog->exts_integrated) {
> @@ -775,6 +776,55 @@ static int cls_bpf_link_detach(struct bpf_link *link)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int cls_bpf_link_update(struct bpf_link *link, struct bpf_prog *new_prog,
> +			       struct bpf_prog *old_prog)
> +{
> +	struct cls_bpf_link *cls_link;
> +	struct cls_bpf_prog cls_prog;
> +	struct cls_bpf_prog *prog;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +
> +	cls_link = container_of(link, struct cls_bpf_link, link);
> +	if (!cls_link->prog) {
> +		ret = -ENOLINK;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	prog = cls_link->prog;
> +
> +	/* BPF_F_REPLACEing? */
> +	if (old_prog && prog->filter != old_prog) {
> +		ret = -EINVAL;

Other places like cgroup_bpf_replace and bpf_iter_link_replace
return -EPERM in such case.

> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	old_prog = prog->filter;
> +
> +	if (new_prog == old_prog) {
> +		ret = 0;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	cls_prog = *prog;
> +	cls_prog.filter = new_prog;
> +
> +	ret = cls_bpf_offload(prog->tp, &cls_prog, prog, NULL);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	WRITE_ONCE(prog->filter, new_prog);
> +
> +	bpf_prog_inc(new_prog);
> +	/* release our reference */
> +	bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
> +
> +out:
> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  static void __bpf_fill_link_info(struct cls_bpf_link *link,
>  				 struct bpf_link_info *info)
>  {
> @@ -859,6 +909,7 @@ static const struct bpf_link_ops cls_bpf_link_ops = {
>  	.show_fdinfo = cls_bpf_link_show_fdinfo,
>  #endif
>  	.fill_link_info = cls_bpf_link_fill_link_info,
> +	.update_prog = cls_bpf_link_update,
>  };
>  
>  static inline char *cls_bpf_link_name(u32 prog_id, const char *name)
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

--