netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Move nf_conn extern declarations to filter.h

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:03:15 -0600
From:   Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, pablo@...filter.org,
        fw@...len.de, toke@...nel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Move nf_conn extern declarations to
 filter.h

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:35:03PM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:20, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/11/22 11:19 AM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > We're seeing the following new warnings on netdev/build_32bit and
> > > netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn CI jobs:
> > >
> > >      ../net/core/filter.c:8608:1: warning: symbol
> > >      'nf_conn_btf_access_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > >      ../net/core/filter.c:8611:5: warning: symbol 'nfct_bsa' was not
> > >      declared. Should it be static?
> > >
> > > Fix by ensuring extern declaration is present while compiling filter.o.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> > > ---
> > >   include/linux/filter.h                   | 6 ++++++
> > >   include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h | 7 +------
> > >   2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > index 527ae1d64e27..96de256b2c8d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > @@ -567,6 +567,12 @@ struct sk_filter {
> > >
> > >   DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> > >
> > > +extern struct mutex nf_conn_btf_access_lock;
> > > +extern int (*nfct_bsa)(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
> > > +                    const struct btf_type *t, int off, int size,
> > > +                    enum bpf_access_type atype, u32 *next_btf_id,
> > > +                    enum bpf_type_flag *flag);
> >
> > Can it avoid leaking the nfct specific details like
> > 'nf_conn_btf_access_lock' and the null checking on 'nfct_bsa' to
> > filter.c?  In particular, this code snippet in filter.c:
> >
> >          mutex_lock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> >          if (nfct_bsa)
> >                  ret = nfct_bsa(log, btf, ....);
> >         mutex_unlock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> >
> >
> > Can the lock and null check be done as one function (eg.
> > nfct_btf_struct_access()) in nf_conntrack_bpf.c and use it in filter.c
> > instead?
> 
> Don't think so, no. Because we want nf_conntrack to work as a module as well.
> I was the one who suggested nf_conn specific names for now. There is
> no other user of such module supplied
> btf_struct_access callbacks yet, when one appears, we should instead
> make registration of such callbacks properly generic (i.e. also
> enforce it is only for module BTF ID etc.).
> But that would be a lot of code without any users right now.
> 
> >
> > btw, 'bsa' stands for btf_struct_access? It is a bit too short to guess ;)
> >
> > Also, please add a Fixes tag.
> >
> 
> Agreed. Daniel, can you address the remaining two points from Martin and respin?

Yes, will do.

Thanks,
Daniel