netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4] bpf, net: Check cgroup_bpf_enabled() only once in do_sock

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: <Zsk_lGsZBBqbesqS@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:04:04 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南) <Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kuniyu@...zon.com" <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
	"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
	Cheng-Jui Wang (王正睿) <Cheng-Jui.Wang@...iatek.com>,
	wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>,
	"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Bobule Chang (張弘義) <bobule.chang@...iatek.com>,
	"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Yanghui Li (李阳辉) <Yanghui.Li@...iatek.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"eddyz87@...il.com" <eddyz87@...il.com>,
	"martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
	"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
	"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com" <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	"yonghong.song@...ux.dev" <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	"haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] bpf, net: Check cgroup_bpf_enabled() only once in
 do_sock_getsockopt()

On 08/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:02 AM Tze-nan Wu (吳澤南)
> <Tze-nan.Wu@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > BTW, If this should be handled in kernel, modification shown below
> > could fix the issue without breaking the "static_branch" usage in both
> > macros:
> >
> >
> > +++ /include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h:
> >     -#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen)
> >     +#define BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen, compat)
> >      ({
> >             int __ret = 0;
> >             if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> >                 copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
> >      +      else
> >      +          *compat = true;
> >             __ret;
> >      })
> >
> >     #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_GETSOCKOPT(sock, level, optname,
> > optval, optlen, max_optlen, retval)
> >      ({
> >          int __ret = retval;
> >     -    if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT) &&
> >     -        cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> >     +    if (cgroup_bpf_sock_enabled(sock, CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT))
> >              if (!(sock)->sk_prot->bpf_bypass_getsockopt ||
> >                ...
> >
> >   +++ /net/socket.c:
> >     int do_sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock, bool compat, int level,
> >      {
> >         ...
> >         ...
> >     +     /* The meaning of `compat` variable could be changed here
> >     +      * to indicate if cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_SOCK_OPS) is
> > false.
> >     +      */
> >         if (!compat)
> >     -       max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen);
> >     +       max_optlen = BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN(optlen,
> > &compat);
> 
> This is better, but it's still quite a hack. Let's not override it.
> We can have another bool, but the question:
> do we really need BPF_CGROUP_GETSOCKOPT_MAX_OPTLEN  ?
> copy_from_sockptr(&__ret, optlen, sizeof(int));
> should be fast enough to do it unconditionally.
> What are we saving here?
> 
> Stan ?

Agreed, most likely nobody would notice :-)