netdev - Re: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: XDP metadata RX kfuncs

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:42:19 -0800
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@...el.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>,
        Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@...hat.com>, xdp-hints@...-project.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: XDP metadata RX
 kfuncs

On 12/8/22 6:57 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 4:07 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Another UX thing I ran into is that libbpf will bail out if it can't
>>>> find the kfunc in the kernel vmlinux, even if the code calling the
>>>> function is behind an always-false if statement (which would be
>>>> eliminated as dead code from the verifier). This makes it a bit hard to
>>>> conditionally use them. Should libbpf just allow the load without
>>>> performing the relocation (and let the verifier worry about it), or
>>>> should we have a bpf_core_kfunc_exists() macro to use for checking?
>>>> Maybe both?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how libbpf can allow the load without performing the
>>> relocation; maybe I'm missing something.
>>> IIUC, libbpf uses the kfunc name (from the relocation?) and replaces
>>> it with the kfunc id, right?
>>
>> Yeah, so if it can't find the kfunc in vmlinux, just write an id of 0.
>> This will trip the check at the top of fixup_kfunc_call() in the
>> verifier, but if the code is hidden behind an always-false branch (an
>> rodata variable set to zero, say) the instructions should get eliminated
>> before they reach that point. That way you can at least turn it off at
>> runtime (after having done some kind of feature detection) without
>> having to compile it out of your program entirely.
>>
>>> Having bpf_core_kfunc_exists would help, but this probably needs
>>> compiler work first to preserve some of the kfunc traces in vmlinux.h?

hmm.... if I follow correctly, it wants the libbpf to accept a bpf prog using a 
kfunc that does not exist in the running kernel?

Have you tried "__weak":

extern void dummy_kfunc(void) __ksym __weak;

SEC("tc")
int load(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
	if (dummy_kfunc) {
		dummy_kfunc();
		return TC_ACT_SHOT;
	}
	return TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
}