netdev - [RFC bpf-next] bpf: Use prog->active instead of bpf_prog_active for kprobe

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220525114003.61890-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 13:40:03 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: [RFC bpf-next] bpf: Use prog->active instead of bpf_prog_active for kprobe_multi

hi,
Alexei suggested to use prog->active instead global bpf_prog_active
for programs attached with kprobe multi [1].

AFAICS this will bypass bpf_disable_instrumentation, which seems to be
ok for some places like hash map update, but I'm not sure about other
places, hence this is RFC post.

I'm not sure how are kprobes different to trampolines in this regard,
because trampolines use prog->active and it's not a problem.

thoughts?

thanks,
jirka


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220316185333.ytyh5irdftjcklk6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com/
---
 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 10b157a6d73e..7aec39ae0a1c 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -2385,8 +2385,8 @@ static u64 bpf_kprobe_multi_entry_ip(struct bpf_run_ctx *ctx)
 }
 
 static int
-kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
-			   unsigned long entry_ip, struct pt_regs *regs)
+__kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
+			     unsigned long entry_ip, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	struct bpf_kprobe_multi_run_ctx run_ctx = {
 		.link = link,
@@ -2395,21 +2395,28 @@ kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
 	struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
 	int err;
 
-	if (unlikely(__this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_prog_active) != 1)) {
-		err = 0;
-		goto out;
-	}
-
-	migrate_disable();
-	rcu_read_lock();
 	old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx);
 	err = bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs);
 	bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx);
+	return err;
+}
+
+static int
+kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link,
+			   unsigned long entry_ip, struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+	struct bpf_prog *prog = link->link.prog;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	migrate_disable();
+	rcu_read_lock();
+
+	if (likely(__this_cpu_inc_return(*(prog->active)) == 1))
+		err = __kprobe_multi_link_prog_run(link, entry_ip, regs);
+
+	__this_cpu_dec(*(prog->active));
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 	migrate_enable();
-
- out:
-	__this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
 	return err;
 }
 
-- 
2.35.3