[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c2c046c-ed85-3718-223f-b74a05d0b483@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 13:57:20 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] bpf_trace: bail out from
bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach when in compat
On 5/18/22 1:03 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/22 5:22 AM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>>> Since bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach doesn't support 32-bit kernels
>>> for whatever reason, having it enabled for compat processes on 64-bit
>>> kernels makes even less sense due to discrepances in the type sizes
>>> that it does not handle.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the reason is due to
>> in libbpf we have
>> struct bpf_link_create_opts {
>> size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward compatibility
>> */
>> __u32 flags;
>> union bpf_iter_link_info *iter_info;
>> __u32 iter_info_len;
>> __u32 target_btf_id;
>> union {
>> struct {
>> __u64 bpf_cookie;
>> } perf_event;
>> struct {
>> __u32 flags;
>> __u32 cnt;
>> const char **syms;
>> const unsigned long *addrs;
>> const __u64 *cookies;
>> } kprobe_multi;
>> };
>> size_t :0;
>> };
>>
>> Note that we have `const unsigned long *addrs;`
>>
>> If we have 32-bit user space application and 64bit kernel,
>> and we will have userspace 32-bit pointers and kernel as
>> 64bit pointers and current kernel doesn't handle 32-bit
>> user pointer properly.
>>
>> Consider this may involve libbpf uapi change, maybe
>> we should change "const unsigned long *addrs;" to
>> "const __u64 *addrs;" considering we haven't freeze
>> libbpf UAPI yet.
>>
>> Otherwise, we stick to current code with this patch,
>> it will make it difficult to support 32-bit app with
>> 64-bit kernel for kprobe_multi in the future due to
>> uapi issues.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> As 32 bit arches are "unsupported" currently, the change would be more
> a semantic one rather then practical; I don't mind having it here (basically,
> the tools/* part of [1]), though (assuming it is still possible to get it
> in 5.18).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6ef675aeeea442fa8fc168cd1cb4e4e474f65a3f.1652772731.git.esyr@redhat.com/
I think for patch [1], we only need libbpf and selftest change, no
kernel change is needed since we
explicitly does not support 32bit kernel in the
beginning of function bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach():
/* no support for 32bit archs yet */
if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
and in kernel, address (pointer) size will be considered
long (64bit) which is exactly the libbpf change did that.
>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0dcac272540613d4 ("bpf: Add multi kprobe link")
>>> Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> index 212faa4..2f83489 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> @@ -2412,7 +2412,7 @@ int bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
>>> int err;
>>> /* no support for 32bit archs yet */
>>> - if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *))
>>> + if (sizeof(u64) != sizeof(void *) || in_compat_syscall())
>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> if (prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_MULTI)
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists