netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, sockops: Enhance the return capability of sockops

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: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 10:43:21 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Xin Liu <liuxin350@...wei.com>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	hsinweih@....edu, jakub@...udflare.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, 
	kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, syzbot+49f6cef45247ff249498@...kaller.appspotmail.com, 
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, yanan@...wei.com, wuchangye@...wei.com, 
	xiesongyang@...wei.com, kongweibin2@...wei.com, zhangmingyi5@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, sockops: Enhance the return capability of sockops

On 07/06, Xin Liu wrote:
> Since commit 2585cd62f098 ("bpf: Only reply field should be writeable"),
> sockops is not allowd to modify the replylong field except replylong[0].
> The reason is that the replylong[1] to replylong[3] field is not used
> at that time.
> 
> But in actual use, we can call `BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_SOCK_OPS` in the
> kernel modules and expect sockops to return some useful data.
> 
> The design comment about bpf_sock_ops::replylong in 
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h is described as follows:
> 
> ```
>   struct bpf_sock_ops {
> 	__u32 op;
> 	union {
> 		__u32 args[4];		/* Optionally passed to bpf program */
> 		__u32 reply;		/* Returned by bpf program	    */
> 		__u32 replylong[4];	/* Optioznally returned by bpf prog  */
> 	};
>   ...
> ```
> 
> It seems to contradict the purpose for which the field was originally
> designed. Let's remove this restriction.
> 
> Fixes: 2585cd62f098 ("bpf: Only reply field should be writeable")

The commit you reference explicitly says that there is no reason to allow
replylong[1..3] because there is no use for them. Has something changed
since it was added? Any reason to expose those fields?