Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] bpf/selftests: Add selftests for new task kfuncs

[David Vernet <void@manifault.com>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 07:23:23AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:

Note: I'm responding to Kumar's email from v3 [0] here on v5 instead,
per his request on [1].

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAP01T77PTK+bD2mBrxJShKNPhEypT2+nSHcr3=uuJbrghv_wFg@mail.gmail.com/
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAP01T747PKC2jySOZCWu_gauHbBfaj4JE=hbtm4Z4C-Y8b3ZHg@mail.gmail.com/

My apologies again for the silly mistakes and having to send multiple
versions of the patch set.

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 at 01:45, David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
> >
> > A previous change added a series of kfuncs for storing struct
> > task_struct objects as referenced kptrs. This patch adds a new
> > task_kfunc test suite for validating their expected behavior.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
> > ---
> > [...]
> > +
> > +SEC("tp_btf/task_newtask")
> > +int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_acquire_trusted_nested, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_flags)
> > +{
> > +       struct task_struct *acquired;
> > +
> > +       if (!is_test_kfunc_task())
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       /* Can't invoke bpf_task_acquire() on a trusted pointer at a nonzero offset. */
> > +       acquired = bpf_task_acquire(task->last_wakee);
>
> The comment is incorrect, that would be &task->last_wakee instead,
> this is PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_NESTED.

Well, it's a nonzero offset from task. But yes, to your point, it's a
misleading comment because the offset is 0 in the verifier. I'll
rephrase this to reflect that it's a nested pointer (or a walked
pointer, whatever nomenclature we end up going with).

> > +       if (!acquired)
> > +               return 0;
> > +       bpf_task_release(acquired);
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > [...]
> > +
> > +static int test_acquire_release(struct task_struct *task)
> > +{
> > +       struct task_struct *acquired;
> > +
> > +       acquired = bpf_task_acquire(task);
>
> Unfortunately a side effect of this change is that now since
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID without ref_obj_id is considered trusted, the bpf_ct_*
> functions would begin working with tp_btf args. That probably needs 
> be fixed so that they reject them (ideally with a failing test case to
> make sure it doesn't resurface), probably with a new suffix __ref/or
> __owned as added here [0].
>
> Alexei, since you've suggested avoiding adding that suffix, do you see
> any other way out here?
> It's questionable whether bpf_ct_set_timeout/status should work for CT
> not owned by the BPF program.
>
>   [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/dfb859a6b76a9234baa194e795ae89cb7ca5694b.1662383493.git.lorenzo@kerne

Ah, yeah, it makes sense that some kfuncs really should only ever be
passed an object if the program owns a reference on it. Specifically for
e.g. bpf_ct_set_timeout/status() as you point out, which should only be
passed a struct nf_conn__init that was allocated by bpf_skb_ct_alloc().

It'd be nice if we could just add another flag like KF_REFERENCED_ARGS
or KF_OWNED_ARGS, which would allow a subset of arguments affored by
KF_TRUSTED_ARGS, only those with ref_obj_id > 0. That approach wouldn't
allow the flexibility of having per-argument specifications as your
proposal to use __ref or __owned suffixes on the names, but that already
applies to KF_TRUSTED_ARGS as well.

Personally I'm in agreement with Alexei that it's not a user friendly
API to use suffixes in the name like this. If we want to allow kfunc
authors to have per-argument specifiers, using compiler attributes
and/or some kind of tagging is probably the way to do it?

My proposal for now is to add a new KF_OWNED_ARGS flag, and to very
clearly document exactly what that and KF_TRUSTED_ARGS implies for
kfuncs. Later on, we could explore solutions for having per-arg
specifiers. What do you and Alexei think?