netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] libbpf: split bpf_core_apply

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:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:26:52 -0500
From:   Mauricio Vásquez Bernal <mauricio@...volk.io>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        Rafael David Tinoco <rafaeldtinoco@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Fontana <lorenzo.fontana@...stic.co>,
        Leonardo Di Donato <leonardo.didonato@...stic.co>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] libbpf: split bpf_core_apply_relo()

> > -static int bpf_core_apply_relo(struct bpf_program *prog,
> > -                              const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
> > -                              int relo_idx,
> > -                              const struct btf *local_btf,
> > -                              struct hashmap *cand_cache)
> > +static int bpf_core_calc_relo_res(struct bpf_program *prog,
>
> bpf_core_calc_relo_res is almost indistinguishable from
> bpf_core_calc_relo... Let's call this one bpf_core_resolve_relo()?
>

That's a much better name! Deciding the name of that function was
probably the most complicated part of this patch.

> > @@ -5636,12 +5627,31 @@ bpf_object__relocate_core(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *targ_btf_path)
> >                         if (!prog->load)
> >                                 continue;
> >
> > -                       err = bpf_core_apply_relo(prog, rec, i, obj->btf, cand_cache);
> > +                       err = bpf_core_calc_relo_res(prog, rec, i, obj->btf, cand_cache, &targ_res);
> >                         if (err) {
> >                                 pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: failed to relocate: %d\n",
> >                                         prog->name, i, err);
> >                                 goto out;
> >                         }
> > +
> > +                       if (rec->insn_off % BPF_INSN_SZ)
> > +                               return -EINVAL;
> > +                       insn_idx = rec->insn_off / BPF_INSN_SZ;
> > +                       /* adjust insn_idx from section frame of reference to the local
> > +                        * program's frame of reference; (sub-)program code is not yet
> > +                        * relocated, so it's enough to just subtract in-section offset
> > +                        */
> > +                       insn_idx = insn_idx - prog->sec_insn_off;
> > +                       if (insn_idx >= prog->insns_cnt)
> > +                               return -EINVAL;
> > +                       insn = &prog->insns[insn_idx];
>
> this is sort of like sanity checks, let's do them before the core_calc
> step, so after that it's a clean sequence of calc_relo + pathc_insn?
>

Makes sense.

> > @@ -1177,18 +1152,18 @@ static void bpf_core_dump_spec(const char *prog_name, int level, const struct bp
> >   *    between multiple relocations for the same type ID and is updated as some
> >   *    of the candidates are pruned due to structural incompatibility.
> >   */
> > -int bpf_core_apply_relo_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
> > -                            int insn_idx,
> > -                            const struct bpf_core_relo *relo,
> > -                            int relo_idx,
> > -                            const struct btf *local_btf,
> > -                            struct bpf_core_cand_list *cands,
> > -                            struct bpf_core_spec *specs_scratch)
> > +int bpf_core_calc_relo_insn(const char *prog_name,
>
> please update the comment for this function, it's not "CO-RE relocate
> single instruction" anymore, it's more like "Calculate CO-RE
> relocation target result" or something along those lines.
>

Updated with your suggestion.

> > @@ -1223,12 +1198,12 @@ int bpf_core_apply_relo_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >         /* TYPE_ID_LOCAL relo is special and doesn't need candidate search */
> >         if (relo->kind == BPF_CORE_TYPE_ID_LOCAL) {
> >                 /* bpf_insn's imm value could get out of sync during linking */
> > -               memset(&targ_res, 0, sizeof(targ_res));
> > -               targ_res.validate = false;
> > -               targ_res.poison = false;
> > -               targ_res.orig_val = local_spec->root_type_id;
> > -               targ_res.new_val = local_spec->root_type_id;
> > -               goto patch_insn;
> > +               memset(targ_res, 0, sizeof(*targ_res));
> > +               targ_res->validate = true;
>
> hm.. original code sets it to false here, please don't regress the logic
>

ops, I introduced this by mistake while rebasing.