Message-ID: <CAKH8qBvkWFGqp+TCo4v+uXBOpTahVPX+kgY7QLJpcPqK5bnirw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:51:13 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 06/10] bpf: expose bpf_{g,s}etsockopt to lsm cgroup

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:08 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:42 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 09:57:59AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > I don't see how to make it nice without introducing btf id lists
> > > > for the hooks where these helpers are allowed. Some LSM hooks
> > > > work on the locked sockets, some are triggering early and
> > > > don't grab any locks, so have two lists for now:
> > > >
> > > > 1. LSM hooks which trigger under socket lock - minority of the hooks,
> > > >    but ideal case for us, we can expose existing BTF-based helpers
> > > > 2. LSM hooks which trigger without socket lock, but they trigger
> > > >    early in the socket creation path where it should be safe to
> > > >    do setsockopt without any locks
> > > > 3. The rest are prohibited. I'm thinking that this use-case might
> > > >    be a good gateway to sleeping lsm cgroup hooks in the future.
> > > >    We can either expose lock/unlock operations (and add tracking
> > > >    to the verifier) or have another set of bpf_setsockopt
> > > >    wrapper that grab the locks and might sleep.
> > > Another possibility is to acquire/release the sk lock in
> > > __bpf_prog_{enter,exit}_lsm_cgroup().  However, it will unnecessarily
> > > acquire it even the prog is not doing any get/setsockopt.
> > > It probably can make some checking to avoid the lock...etc. :/
> > >
> > > sleepable bpf-prog is a cleaner way out.  From a quick look,
> > > cgroup_storage is not safe for sleepable bpf-prog.
> >
> > Is it because it's using non-trace-flavor of rcu?
> Right, and commit 0fe4b381a59e ("bpf: Allow bpf_local_storage to be used by sleepable programs")
> is to make it work for both flavors.
>
> >
> > > All other BPF_MAP_TYPE_{SK,INODE,TASK}_STORAGE is already
> > > safe once their common infra in bpf_local_storage.c was made
> > > sleepable-safe.
> >
> > That might be another argument in favor of replacing the internal
> > implementation for cgroup_storage with the generic framework we use
> > for sk/inode/task.
> It could be a new map type to support sk/inode/task style of local storage.
>
> I am seeing use cases that the bpf prog is not a cgroup-bpf prog
> and it has a hold of the cgroup pointer.  It ends up creating a bpf hashmap with
> the cg_id as the key.  For example,
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220610194435.2268290-9-yosryahmed@google.com/
> It will be useful to support this use case for cgroup as sk/inode/task
> storage does.  A quick thought is it needs another map_type because
> of different helper interface, e.g. the bpf prog can create and
> delete a sk/inode/task storage.

Good point. We've also discussed that new map type internally with
Yosry. And for me the biggest issue with a new map was some major
differentiating factor from the existing one. Making it work with
non-cgroup progs might be it. Another, as you mention, is the ability
to remove the value. Having special treatment for
bpf_get_local_storage (in terms of always assuming non-null return
value) might be problematic for the internal conversion to the common
storage framework :-(

> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/bpf.h  |  2 ++
> > > >  kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  net/core/filter.c    | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > >  3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > index 503f28fa66d2..c0a269269882 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > @@ -2282,6 +2282,8 @@ extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_for_each_map_elem_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_btf_find_by_name_kind_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sk_setsockopt_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sk_getsockopt_proto;
> > > > +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_unlocked_sk_setsockopt_proto;
> > > > +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_unlocked_sk_getsockopt_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_kallsyms_lookup_name_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_find_vma_proto;
> > > >  extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_loop_proto;
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > > index 83aa431dd52e..52b6e3067986 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > > > @@ -45,6 +45,26 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_sk_alloc_security)
> > > >  BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_sk_free_security)
> > > >  BTF_SET_END(bpf_lsm_current_hooks)
> > > >
> > > > +/* List of LSM hooks that trigger while the socket is properly locked.
> > > > + */
> > > > +BTF_SET_START(bpf_lsm_locked_sockopt_hooks)
> > > > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_socket_sock_rcv_skb)
> > > > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_sk_clone_security)
> > > From looking how security_sk_clone() is used at sock_copy(),
> > > it has two sk args, one is listen sk and one is the clone.
> > > I think both of them are not locked.
> > >
> > > The bpf_lsm_inet_csk_clone below should be enough to
> > > do setsockopt in the new clone?
> >
> > Hm, good point, let me drop this one.
> >
> > I wonder if long term, instead of those lists, we can annotate the
> > arguments with __locked or __unlocked (the way we do with __user
> > pointers)? That might be more scalable and we can let sleepable bpf
> > deal with __unlocked cases. Just thinking out loud...
> I think the btf_tag may help here. Cc: Yonghong.

Exactly. I haven't looked closely, but that seems like the right thing
to leverage. Thx!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists