netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/14] bpf: net: Avoid sock_setsockopt() taking sk lock when called from bpf

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

Message-ID: <CAKH8qBs3jp_0gRiHyzm29HaW53ZYpGYpWbmLhwi87xWKi9g=UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:38:51 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/14] bpf: net: Avoid sock_setsockopt() taking
 sk lock when called from bpf

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:21 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 01:39:08PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:37 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 09:47:25AM -0700, sdf@...gle.com wrote:
> > > > On 07/26, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > > > Most of the codes in bpf_setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET) are duplicated from
> > > > > the sock_setsockopt().  The number of supported options are
> > > > > increasing ever and so as the duplicated codes.
> > > >
> > > > > One issue in reusing sock_setsockopt() is that the bpf prog
> > > > > has already acquired the sk lock.  sockptr_t is useful to handle this.
> > > > > sockptr_t already has a bit 'is_kernel' to handle the kernel-or-user
> > > > > memory copy.  This patch adds a 'is_bpf' bit to tell if sk locking
> > > > > has already been ensured by the bpf prog.
> > > >
> > > > Why not explicitly call it is_locked/is_unlocked? I'm assuming, at some
> > > > point,
> > > is_locked was my initial attempt.  The bpf_setsockopt() also skips
> > > the ns_capable() check, like in patch 3.  I ended up using
> > > one is_bpf bit here to do both.
> >
> > Yeah, sorry, I haven't read the whole series before I sent my first
> > reply. Let's discuss it here.
> >
> > This reminds me of ns_capable in __inet_bind where we also had to add
> > special handling.
> >
> > In general, not specific to the series, I wonder if we want some new
> > in_bpf() context indication and bypass ns_capable() from those
> > contexts?
> > Then we can do things like:
> >
> >   if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && !in_bpf() && !ns_capable(net->user_ns,
> > CAP_NET_RAW))
> >     return ...;
> Don't see a way to implement in_bpf() after some thoughts.
> Do you have idea ?

I wonder if we can cheat a bit with the following:

bool setsockopt_capable(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
{
       if (!in_task()) {
             /* Running in irq/softirq -> setsockopt invoked by bpf program.
              * [not sure, is it safe to assume no regular path leads
to setsockopt from sirq?]
              */
             return true;
       }

       /* Running in process context, task has bpf_ctx set -> invoked
by bpf program. */
       if (current->bpf_ctx != NULL)
             return true;

       return ns_capable(ns, cap);
}

And then do /ns_capable/setsockopt_capable/ in net/core/sock.c

But that might be more fragile than passing the flag, idk.

> > Or would it make things more confusing?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > we can have code paths in bpf where the socket has been already locked by
> > > > the stack?
> > > hmm... You meant the opposite, like the bpf hook does not have the
> > > lock pre-acquired before the bpf prog gets run and sock_setsockopt()
> > > should do lock_sock() as usual?
> > >
> > > I was thinking a likely situation is a bpf 'sleepable' hook does not
> > > have the lock pre-acquired.  In that case, the bpf_setsockopt() could
> > > always acquire the lock first but it may turn out to be too
> > > pessmissitic for the future bpf_[G]etsockopt() refactoring.
> > >
> > > or we could do this 'bit' break up (into one is_locked bit
> > > for locked and one is_bpf to skip-capable-check).  I was waiting until a real
> > > need comes up instead of having both bits always true now.  I don't mind to
> > > add is_locked now since the bpf_lsm_cgroup may come to sleepable soon.
> > > I can do this in the next spin.