netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/10] bpf: Add reference tracking support to kfunc

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: <20211219043837.27p3zvtdpozs7ep4@apollo.legion>
Date:   Sun, 19 Dec 2021 10:08:37 +0530
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...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>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/10] bpf: Add reference tracking support to
 kfunc

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 09:24:37AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:01 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 07:52:48AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 07:20:26AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > index 965fffaf0308..015cb633838b 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > @@ -521,6 +521,9 @@ struct bpf_verifier_ops {
> > > >                              enum bpf_access_type atype,
> > > >                              u32 *next_btf_id);
> > > >     bool (*check_kfunc_call)(u32 kfunc_btf_id, struct module *owner);
> > > > +   bool (*is_acquire_kfunc)(u32 kfunc_btf_id, struct module *owner);
> > > > +   bool (*is_release_kfunc)(u32 kfunc_btf_id, struct module *owner);
> > > > +   bool (*is_kfunc_ret_type_null)(u32 kfunc_btf_id, struct module *owner);
> > >
> > > Same feedback as before...
> > >
> > > Those callbacks are not necessary.
> > > The existing check_kfunc_call() is just as inconvenient.
> > > When module's BTF comes in could you add it to mod's info instead of
> > > introducing callbacks for every kind of data the module has.
> > > Those callbacks don't server any purpose other than passing the particular
> > > data set back. The verifier side should access those data sets directly.
> >
> > Ok, interesting idea. So these then go into the ".modinfo" section?
>
> It doesn't need to be a special section.
> The btf_module_notify() parses BTF.
> At the same time it can add a kfunc whitelist to "struct module".
> The btf_ids[ACQUIRE/RELEASE][] arrays will be a part of
> the "struct module" too.
> If we can do a btf name convention then this job can be
> performed generically by btf_module_notify().
> Otherwise __init of the module can populate arrays in "struct module".
>

Nice idea, I think this is better than what I am doing (it also prevents
constant researching into the list).

But IIUC I think this btf_ids array needs to go into struct btf instead,
since if module is compiled as built-in, we will not have any struct module for
it.

Then we can concatenate all sets of same type (check/acquire/release etc.) and
sort them to directly search using a single btf_id_set_contains call, the code
becomes same for btf_vmlinux or module btf. struct module is not needed anymore.

WDYT?

> > I think then
> > we can also drop the check_kfunc_call callback?
>
> Right. Would be great to remove that callback too.

Ok, will do.

--
Kartikeya