| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:05:26 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Lorenz Bauer <linux@....io>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/5] bpf: Add ARG_SCALAR and ARG_CONSTANT
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 10:26 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
<memxor@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:12:13AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 3:43 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the next patch, we will introduce a new helper 'bpf_packet_pointer'
> > > that takes offset and len and returns a packet pointer. There we want to
> > > statically enforce offset is in range [0, 0xffff], and that len is a
> > > constant value, in range [1, 0xffff]. This also helps us avoid a
> > > pointless runtime check. To make these checks possible, we need to
> > > ensure we only get a scalar type. Although a lot of other argument types
> > > take scalars, their intent is different. Hence add general ARG_SCALAR
> > > and ARG_CONSTANT types, where the latter is also checked to be constant
> > > in addition to being scalar.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/bpf.h | 2 ++
> > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > index 88449fbbe063..7841d90b83df 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -391,6 +391,8 @@ enum bpf_arg_type {
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_STACK, /* pointer to stack */
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR, /* pointer to a null terminated read-only string */
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_TIMER, /* pointer to bpf_timer */
> > > + ARG_SCALAR, /* a scalar with any value(s) */
> >
> > What's the difference between ARG_ANYTHING and ARG_SCALAR?
> >
>
> ARG_SCALAR only accepts reg->type == SCALAR, ARG_ANYTHING accepts anything as
> long as reg->type != NOT_INIT (due to SRC_OP for check_reg_arg and early return
> without further checks).
>
Ah, ok, didn't realize that it's not always scalar for ARG_ANYTHING
> > > + ARG_CONSTANT, /* a scalar with constant value */
> >
> > This ARG_CONSTANT serves a very similar purpose as
> > ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO, tbh. The only difference is that one is
> > used to set meta->mem_size and this one is used (through extra func_id
> > special handling) to set meta->ret_pkt_len. But meta->mem_size and
> > meta->ret_pkt_len mean the same thing: how many bytes are directly
> > accessible through a pointer returned from the helper. So I feel like
> > there is some opportunity to unify and generalize, instead of adding
> > more custom variants of constants. WDYT?
> >
>
> I see, indeed it would make sense to make both equivalent, since
> CONST_ALLOC_SIZE must also be a constant. Joanne also mentioned consolidating,
> but I didn't understand how that would work for ARG_CONSTANT and ARG_CONST_SIZE
> ones.
>
> I'm wondering whether we can take a step back and should go with the following
> convention:
>
> ARG_MEM_SIZE, and two type flags, ARG_ZERO | ARG_CONSTANT
>
> Old New (in bpf_func_proto)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARG_CONST_SIZE ARG_MEM_SIZE
> ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO ARG_MEM_SIZE | ARG_ZERO
> ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE ARG_MEM_SIZE | ARG_CONST
> ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO ARG_MEM_SIZE | ARG_CONST | ARG_ZERO
> ARG_CONSTANT (mine) ARG_MEM_SIZE | ARG_CONST
>
I think using "ARG_MEM_SIZE" as part of ARG_CONSTANT is backwards and
misleading. It makes more sense to me to have ARG_CONSTANT and use
ARG_ZERO (or rather ARG_MAYBE_ZERO?) and ARG_MEM_SIZE (to specify that
this constant is describing the size of memory of a pointer that is
passed in a previous argument).
Basically, something like:
ARG_CONST_SIZE => ARG_CONSTANT | ARG_MEM_SIZE
ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO => ARG_CONSTANT | ARG_MEM_SIZE | ARG_MAYBE_ZERO
Then we can replace ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE and
ARG_CONST_ALLOC_SIZE_OR_ZERO with ARG_CONSTANT and ARG_CONSTANT |
ARG_MAYBE_ZERO and we'll have a bit of special case to handle
bpf_ringbuf_reserve.
For ARG_CONSTANT, verifier will remember the value in
bpf_call_arg_meta, and then we can use it as necessary (e.g., instead
of mem_size when ARG_MEM_SIZE is specified) depending on context,
helper being called, etc.
Adding ARG_CONST just makes no sense as we always want constant value,
otherwise it might as well be just ARG_ANYTHING, right?
I haven't spent much time thinking about this, though, so I'm probably
missing something.
> When we detect ARG_CONST, we always set meta->mem_size, which can be used to
> refine returned pointer range, otherwise meta->mem_size = -1 by default (so it
> will be -1 for the !tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) case).
>
> if (arg_type & ARG_CONST)
> meta->mem_size = reg->var_off.value;
> if (!(arg_type & ARG_ZERO) && !meta->mem_size)
> // error
>
> The check_mem_size_reg call is only made when we see that previous reg was
> ARG_PTR_TO_MEM. When preceding argument is not ARG_PTR_TO_MEM, we error if
> ARG_CONST is not set for ARG_MEM_SIZE (so that either the mem size is for
> previous parameter, or otherwise a constant size for the returned pointer).
> We can also only allow certain pointer return types for that case.
>
> If that is too much automagic, we can also discern using ARG_MEM_SIZE vs
> ARG_RET_MEM_SIZE, but I think the above is fine.
>
> ARG_CONST ofcourse only applies to args taking scalar type.
>
> >
> >
> > > __BPF_ARG_TYPE_MAX,
> > >
> > > /* Extended arg_types. */
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > index ec3a7b6c9515..0373d5bd240f 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > @@ -5163,6 +5163,12 @@ static bool arg_type_is_int_ptr(enum bpf_arg_type type)
> > > type == ARG_PTR_TO_LONG;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static bool arg_type_is_scalar(enum bpf_arg_type type)
> > > +{
> > > + return type == ARG_SCALAR ||
> > > + type == ARG_CONSTANT;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int int_ptr_type_to_size(enum bpf_arg_type type)
> > > {
> > > if (type == ARG_PTR_TO_INT)
> > > @@ -5302,6 +5308,8 @@ static const struct bpf_reg_types *compatible_reg_types[__BPF_ARG_TYPE_MAX] = {
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_STACK] = &stack_ptr_types,
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR] = &const_str_ptr_types,
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_TIMER] = &timer_types,
> > > + [ARG_SCALAR] = &scalar_types,
> > > + [ARG_CONSTANT] = &scalar_types,
> > > };
> > >
> > > static int check_reg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> > > @@ -5635,6 +5643,11 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> > > verbose(env, "string is not zero-terminated\n");
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > > + } else if (arg_type_is_scalar(arg_type)) {
> > > + if (arg_type == ARG_CONSTANT && !tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
> > > + verbose(env, "R%d is not a known constant\n", regno);
> > > + return -EACCES;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > return err;
> > > --
> > > 2.35.1
> > >
>
> --
> Kartikeya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists