netdev - Re: [PATCH v14 bpf-next 00/18] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer support

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: <YVbO/kit/mjWTrv6@lore-desk>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:03:58 +0200
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, shayagr@...zon.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 bpf-next 00/18] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer
 support

> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:54:46 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> I'm missing something. Why do we need a separate flush() helper?
> >> Can't we do:
> >> char buf[64], *p;
> >> p = xdp_mb_pointer(ctx, flags, off, len, buf);
> >> read/write p[]
> >> if (p == buf)
> >>     xdp_store_bytes(ctx, off, buf, len, flags);
> >
> > Sure we can. That's what I meant by "leave the checking to the program".
> > It's bike shedding at this point.
> 
> Yeah, let's discuss the details once we have a patch :)
> 
> -Toke
> 

Hi,

I implemented the xdp_mb_pointer/xdp_mb_pointer_flush logic here (according to
current discussion):
https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/a5c61c0fa6cb05bab8caebd96aca5fbbd9510867

For the moment I have only defined two utility routines and I have not exported
them in ebpf helpers since I need to check what are missing bits in the verifier
code (but afaik this would be orthogonal with respect to the "helper code"):
- bpf_xdp_pointer --> xdp_mb_pointer
- bpf_xdp_copy_buf --> xdp_mb_pointer_flush

In order to test them I have defined two new ebpf helpers (they use
bpf_xdp_pointer/bpf_xdp_copy_buf internally):
- bpf_xdp_load_bytes
- bpf_xdp_store_bytes

In order to test bpf_xdp_load_bytes/bpf_xdp_store_bytes +
bpf_xdp_pointer/bpf_xdp_copy_buf I added some selftests here:
https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/5661a491a890c00db744f2884b7ee3a6d0319384

Can you please check if the code above is aligned to current requirements or if
it is missing something?
If this code it is fine, I guess we have two option here:
- integrate the commits above in xdp multi-buff series (posting v15) and work on
  the verfier code in parallel (if xdp_mb_pointer helper is not required from day0)
- integrate verfier changes in xdp multi-buff series, drop bpf_xdp_load_bytes
  helper (probably we will still need bpf_xdp_store_bytes) and introduce
  bpf_xdp_pointer as new ebpf helper.

I am fine both ways. If we decide for the second option I would need some
guidance on verifier changes since I am not so familiar with that code.

Regards,
Lorenzo

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)