netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 3/5] bpf: Add skb dynptrs

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: <CAJnrk1YEN+9dn4DKQQKAQGR4RU9HVVrVD2A3O7chet4tC6OG5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:55:49 -0800
From:   Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        martin.lau@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        memxor@...il.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 3/5] bpf: Add skb dynptrs

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 4:48 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:18 AM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add skb dynptrs, which are dynptrs whose underlying pointer points
> > to a skb. The dynptr acts on skb data. skb dynptrs have two main
> > benefits. One is that they allow operations on sizes that are not
> > statically known at compile-time (eg variable-sized accesses).
> > Another is that parsing the packet data through dynptrs (instead of
> > through direct access of skb->data and skb->data_end) can be more
> > ergonomic and less brittle (eg does not need manual if checking for
> > being within bounds of data_end).
> >
> > For bpf prog types that don't support writes on skb data, the dynptr is
> > read-only (bpf_dynptr_write() will return an error and bpf_dynptr_data()
> > will return a data slice that is read-only where any writes to it will
> > be rejected by the verifier).
> >
> > For reads and writes through the bpf_dynptr_read() and bpf_dynptr_write()
> > interfaces, reading and writing from/to data in the head as well as from/to
> > non-linear paged buffers is supported. For data slices (through the
> > bpf_dynptr_data() interface), if the data is in a paged buffer, the user
> > must first call bpf_skb_pull_data() to pull the data into the linear
> > portion.
> >
> > Any bpf_dynptr_write() automatically invalidates any prior data slices
> > to the skb dynptr. This is because a bpf_dynptr_write() may be writing
> > to data in a paged buffer, so it will need to pull the buffer first into
> > the head. The reason it needs to be pulled instead of writing directly to
> > the paged buffers is because they may be cloned (only the head of the skb
> > is by default uncloned). As such, any bpf_dynptr_write() will
> > automatically have its prior data slices invalidated, even if the write
> > is to data in the skb head (the verifier has no way of differentiating
> > whether the write is to the head or paged buffers during program load
> > time). Please note as well that any other helper calls that change the
> > underlying packet buffer (eg bpf_skb_pull_data()) invalidates any data
> > slices of the skb dynptr as well. The stack trace for this is
> > check_helper_call() -> clear_all_pkt_pointers() ->
> > __clear_all_pkt_pointers() -> mark_reg_unknown().
> >
> > For examples of how skb dynptrs can be used, please see the attached
> > selftests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/bpf.h            |  82 +++++++++------
> >  include/linux/filter.h         |  18 ++++
> >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  37 +++++--
> >  kernel/bpf/btf.c               |  18 ++++
> >  kernel/bpf/helpers.c           |  95 ++++++++++++++---
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c          | 185 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  net/core/filter.c              |  60 ++++++++++-
> >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  37 +++++--
> >  8 files changed, 432 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >  static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_dynptr_write_proto = {
> > @@ -1560,6 +1595,8 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_dynptr_write_proto = {
> >
> >  BPF_CALL_3(bpf_dynptr_data, const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *, ptr, u32, offset, u32, len)
> >  {
> > +       enum bpf_dynptr_type type;
> > +       void *data;
> >         int err;
> >
> >         if (!ptr->data)
> > @@ -1569,10 +1606,36 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_dynptr_data, const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *, ptr, u32, offset, u3
> >         if (err)
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > -       if (bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(ptr))
> > -               return 0;
> > +       type = bpf_dynptr_get_type(ptr);
> > +
> > +       switch (type) {
> > +       case BPF_DYNPTR_TYPE_LOCAL:
> > +       case BPF_DYNPTR_TYPE_RINGBUF:
> > +               if (bpf_dynptr_is_rdonly(ptr))
> > +                       return 0;
>
> will something break if we return ptr->data for read-only LOCAL/RINGBUF dynptr?

There will be nothing guarding against direct writes into read-only
LOCAL/RINGBUF dynptrs if we return ptr->data. For skb type dynptrs,
it's guarded by the ptr->data return pointer being marked as
MEM_RDONLY in the verifier if the skb is non-writable.

>
> > +
> > +               data = ptr->data;
> > +               break;
> > +       case BPF_DYNPTR_TYPE_SKB:
> > +       {
> > +               struct sk_buff *skb = ptr->data;
> >
>
> [...]