netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 bpf-next 3/7] bpf: Add bpf_get_func

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:   Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:48:00 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.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>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 bpf-next 3/7] bpf: Add bpf_get_func_ip helper for
 tracing programs

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 07:11:23PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:47:47PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >  
> > +static bool allow_get_func_ip_tracing(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > +{
> > +	return env->prog->jit_requested && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64);
> 
> Why does it have to be gated by 'jited && x86_64' ?
> It's gated by bpf trampoline and it's only implemented on x86_64 so far.
> The trampoline has plenty of features. I would expect bpf trampoline
> for arm64 to implement all of them. If not the func_ip would be just
> one of the trampoline features that couldn't be implemented and at that
> time we'd need a flag mask of a sort, but I'd rather push of feature
> equivalence between trampoline implementations.

ok, check for trampoline's prog types should be enough

> 
> Then jited part also doesn't seem to be necessary.
> The trampoline passed pointer to a stack in R1.
> Interpreter should deal with BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8) insn
> the same way and it should work, since trampoline prepared it.
> What did I miss?

ah right.. will remove that

SNIP

> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 64bd2d84367f..9edd3b1a00ad 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -948,6 +948,19 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_snprintf_btf_proto = {
> >  	.arg5_type	= ARG_ANYTHING,
> >  };
> >  
> > +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_func_ip_tracing, void *, ctx)
> > +{
> > +	/* Stub, the helper call is inlined in the program. */
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> may be add a WARN in here that it should never be executed ?
> Or may be add an actual implementation:
>  return ((u64 *)ctx)[-1];
> and check that it works without inlining by the verifier?
> 

sure, but having tracing program with this helper, it will be
always inlined, right? I can't see how it could be skipped

thanks,
jirka