netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] libbpf: Use dynamically allocated buffer when receiving netlink messages

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:52:25 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     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>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        Zhiqian Guan <zhguan@...hat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] libbpf: Use dynamically allocated buffer
 when receiving netlink messages

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 7:17 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 3:49 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When receiving netlink messages, libbpf was using a statically allocated
>> >> stack buffer of 4k bytes. This happened to work fine on systems with a 4k
>> >> page size, but on systems with larger page sizes it can lead to truncated
>> >> messages. The user-visible impact of this was that libbpf would insist no
>> >> XDP program was attached to some interfaces because that bit of the netlink
>> >> message got chopped off.
>> >>
>> >> Fix this by switching to a dynamically allocated buffer; we borrow the
>> >> approach from iproute2 of using recvmsg() with MSG_PEEK|MSG_TRUNC to get
>> >> the actual size of the pending message before receiving it, adjusting the
>> >> buffer as necessary. While we're at it, also add retries on interrupted
>> >> system calls around the recvmsg() call.
>> >>
>> >> v2:
>> >>   - Move peek logic to libbpf_netlink_recv(), don't double free on ENOMEM.
>> >>
>> >> Reported-by: Zhiqian Guan <zhguan@...hat.com>
>> >> Fixes: 8bbb77b7c7a2 ("libbpf: Add various netlink helpers")
>> >> Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >
>> > Applied to bpf-next.
>>
>> Awesome, thanks!
>>
>> > One improvement would be to avoid initial malloc of 4096, especially
>> > if that size is enough for most cases. You could detect this through
>> > iov.iov_base == buf and not free(iov.iov_base) at the end. Seems
>> > reliable and simple enough. I'll leave it up to you to follow up, if
>> > you think it's a good idea.
>>
>> Hmm, seems distributions tend to default the stack size limit to 8k; so
>> not sure if blowing half of that on a buffer just to avoid a call to
>> malloc() in a non-performance-sensitive is ideal to begin with? I think
>> I'd prefer to just keep the dynamic allocation...
>
> 8KB for user-space thread stack, really? Not 2MB by default? Are you
> sure you are not confusing this with kernel threads?

Ha, oops! I was looking in the right place, just got the units wrong;
those were kbytes not bytes, so 8M stack size. Sorry for the confusion :)

-Toke