Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] seccomp: make underlying bpf ref counted as well

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 09/14/2015 06:00 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:19PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> I think due to the given insns restrictions on classic seccomp, this
>> could work for "most cases" (see below) for the time being until pointer
>> sanitation is resolved and that seccomp-only restriction from the dump
>> could be removed,
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
>> BUT there's one more stone in the road which you still
>> need to take care of with this whole 'giving classic seccomp-BPF -> eBPF
>> transforms an fd, dumping and restoring that via bpf(2)' approach:
>>
>> If you have JIT enabled on ARM32, and add a classic seccomp-BPF filter,
>> and dump that via your bpf(2) interface based on the current patches, what
>> you'll get is not eBPF opcodes but classic (!) BPF opcodes as ARM32 classic
>> JIT supports compilation of seccomp, since commit 24e737c1ebac ("ARM: net:
>> add JIT support for loads from struct seccomp_data.").
>>
>> So in that case, bpf_prepare_filter() will not call into bpf_migrate_filter()
>> as there's simply no need for it, because the classic code could already
>> be JITed there. I guess other archs where JIT support for eBPF in not yet
>> within near sight might sooner or later support this insn for their classic
>> JITs, too ...
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> What if we legislate that the output of bpf(BPF_PROG_DUMP, ...) is
> always eBPF? As near as I can tell there is no way to determine if a
> struct bpf_prog is classic or eBPF, so we'd need to add a bit to
> indicate whether or not the prog has been converted so that
> BPF_PROG_DUMP knows when to convert it.

As I said, you have bpf_prog_was_classic() function to determine exactly
this (so without your type re-assignment you have a way to distinguish it).

Wouldn't it be much easier to rip this set apart into multiple ones, solving
one individual thing at a time, f.e. starting out simple and 1) only add
native eBPF support to seccomp, after that 2) add a method to dump native-only
eBPF programs for criu, then 3) think about a right interface for classic
BPF seccomp dumping, etc, etc? Currently, it tries to solve everything at
once, and with some early assumptions that have non-trivial side-effects.

Thanks,
Daniel