Date:   Sun, 7 Nov 2021 21:14:41 +0530
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v1 0/6] Introduce unstable CT lookup helpers

On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:43:28PM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 02:43:12AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> >
> > Right now only PTR_TO_BTF_ID and PTR_TO_SOCK and scalars are supported, as you
> > noted, for kfunc arguments.
> >
> > So in 3/6 I move the PTR_TO_CTX block before btf_is_kernel check, that means if
> > reg type is PTR_TO_CTX and it matches the argument for the program, it will use
> > that, otherwise it moves to btf_is_kernel(btf) block, which checks if reg->type
> > is PTR_TO_BTF_ID or one of PTR_TO_SOCK* and does struct match for those. Next, I
> > punt to ptr_to_mem for the rest of the cases, which I think is problematic,
> > since now you may pass PTR_TO_MEM where some kfunc wants a PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
> >
> > But without bpf_func_proto, I am not sure we can decide what is expected in the
> > kfunc. For something like bpf_sock_tuple, we'd want a PTR_TO_MEM, but taking in
> > a PTR_TO_BTF_ID also isn't problematic since it is just data, but for a struct
> > embedding pointers or other cases, it may be a problem.
> >
> > For PTR_TO_CTX in kfunc case, based on my reading and testing, it will reject
> > any attempts to pass anything other than PTR_TO_CTX due to btf_get_prog_ctx_type
> > for that argument. So that works fine.
> >
> > To me it seems like extending with some limited argument checking is necessary,
> > either using tagging as you mentioned or bpf_func_proto, or some other hardcoded
> > checking for now since the number of helpers needing this support is low.
>
> Got it. The patch 3 commit log was too terse for me to comprehend.
> Even with detailed explanation above it took me awhile to understand the
> consequences of the patch... and 'goto ptr_to_mem' I misunderstood completely.
> I think now we're on the same page :)
>
> Agree that allowing PTR_TO_CTX into kfunc is safe to do in all cases.
> Converting PTR_TO_MEM to PTR_TO_BTF_ID is also safe when kernel side 'struct foo'
> contains only scalars. The patches don't have this check yet (as far as I can see).
> That's the only missing piece.

This is a great idea! I think this does address the thing I was worried about.

> With that in place 'struct bpf_sock_tuple' can be defined on the kernel side.
> The bpf prog can do include "vmlinux.h" to use it to pass as PTR_TO_MEM
> into kfunc. The patch 5 kernel function bpf_skb_ct_lookup can stay as-is.
> So no tagging or extensions to bpf_func_proto are necessary.
>
> The piece I'm still missing is why you need two additional *btf_struct_access.
> Why do you want to restrict read access?
> The bpf-tcp infra has bpf_tcp_ca_btf_struct_access() to allow-list
> few safe fields for writing.
> Is there a use case to write into 'struct nf_conn' from bpf prog? Probably not yet.
> Then let's keep the default btf_struct_access() behavior for now.
> The patch 5 will be defining bpf_xdp_ct_lookup_tcp/bpf_skb_ct_lookup_tcp
> and no callbacks at all.
> acquire/release are probably cleaner as explicit btf_id_list-s.
> Similar to btf_id_list for PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL vs PTR_TO_BTF_ID return type.

I agree with everything. I'll rework the BPF stuff like this. Thanks!

--
Kartikeya

Powered by blists - more mailing lists