BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>,
	Delyan Kratunov <delyank@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/26] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 01:02:08 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221111193224.876706-11-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221111193224.876706-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Ensure that there can be no ownership cycles among different types by
way of having owning objects that can hold some other type as their
element. For instance, a map value can only hold allocated objects, but
these are allowed to have another bpf_list_head. To prevent unbounded
recursion while freeing resources, elements of bpf_list_head in local
kptrs can never have a bpf_list_head which are part of list in a map
value. Later patches will verify this by having dedicated BTF selftests.

Also, to make runtime destruction easier, once btf_struct_metas is fully
populated, we can stash the metadata of the value type directly in the
metadata of the list_head fields, as that allows easier access to the
value type's layout to destruct it at runtime from the btf_field entry
of the list head itself.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/bpf.h  |  1 +
 include/linux/btf.h  |  1 +
 kernel/bpf/btf.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/syscall.c |  4 +++
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 4cd3c9e6f50b..c88f75a68893 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct btf_field_list_head {
 	struct btf *btf;
 	u32 value_btf_id;
 	u32 node_offset;
+	struct btf_record *value_rec;
 };
 
 struct btf_field {
diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
index a01a8da20021..42d8f3730a8d 100644
--- a/include/linux/btf.h
+++ b/include/linux/btf.h
@@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ int btf_find_spin_lock(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t);
 int btf_find_timer(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t);
 struct btf_record *btf_parse_fields(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
 				    u32 field_mask, u32 value_size);
+int btf_check_and_fixup_fields(const struct btf *btf, struct btf_record *rec);
 struct btf_field_offs *btf_parse_field_offs(struct btf_record *rec);
 bool btf_type_is_void(const struct btf_type *t);
 s32 btf_find_by_name_kind(const struct btf *btf, const char *name, u8 kind);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index fbcb846188e2..ef8710fab997 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -3723,6 +3723,67 @@ struct btf_record *btf_parse_fields(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type
 	return ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
+int btf_check_and_fixup_fields(const struct btf *btf, struct btf_record *rec)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	/* There are two owning types, kptr_ref and bpf_list_head. The former
+	 * only supports storing kernel types, which can never store references
+	 * to program allocated local types, atleast not yet. Hence we only need
+	 * to ensure that bpf_list_head ownership does not form cycles.
+	 */
+	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rec) || !(rec->field_mask & BPF_LIST_HEAD))
+		return 0;
+	for (i = 0; i < rec->cnt; i++) {
+		struct btf_struct_meta *meta;
+		u32 btf_id;
+
+		if (!(rec->fields[i].type & BPF_LIST_HEAD))
+			continue;
+		btf_id = rec->fields[i].list_head.value_btf_id;
+		meta = btf_find_struct_meta(btf, btf_id);
+		if (!meta)
+			return -EFAULT;
+		rec->fields[i].list_head.value_rec = meta->record;
+
+		if (!(rec->field_mask & BPF_LIST_NODE))
+			continue;
+
+		/* We need to ensure ownership acyclicity among all types. The
+		 * proper way to do it would be to topologically sort all BTF
+		 * IDs based on the ownership edges, since there can be multiple
+		 * bpf_list_head in a type. Instead, we use the following
+		 * reasoning:
+		 *
+		 * - A type can only be owned by another type in user BTF if it
+		 *   has a bpf_list_node.
+		 * - A type can only _own_ another type in user BTF if it has a
+		 *   bpf_list_head.
+		 *
+		 * We ensure that if a type has both bpf_list_head and
+		 * bpf_list_node, its element types cannot be owning types.
+		 *
+		 * To ensure acyclicity:
+		 *
+		 * When A only has bpf_list_head, ownership chain can be:
+		 *	A -> B -> C
+		 * Where:
+		 * - B has both bpf_list_head and bpf_list_node.
+		 * - C only has bpf_list_node.
+		 *
+		 * When A has both bpf_list_head and bpf_list_node, some other
+		 * type already owns it in the BTF domain, hence it can not own
+		 * another owning type through any of the bpf_list_head edges.
+		 *	A -> B
+		 * Where:
+		 * - B only has bpf_list_node.
+		 */
+		if (meta->record->field_mask & BPF_LIST_HEAD)
+			return -ELOOP;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int btf_field_offs_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b, const void *priv)
 {
 	const u32 a = *(const u32 *)_a;
@@ -5412,6 +5473,16 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse(bpfptr_t btf_data, u32 btf_data_size,
 	}
 	btf->struct_meta_tab = struct_meta_tab;
 
+	if (struct_meta_tab) {
+		int i;
+
+		for (i = 0; i < struct_meta_tab->cnt; i++) {
+			err = btf_check_and_fixup_fields(btf, struct_meta_tab->types[i].record);
+			if (err < 0)
+				goto errout_meta;
+		}
+	}
+
 	if (log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
 		err = -ENOSPC;
 		goto errout_meta;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index c96039a4e57f..4669020bb47d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -1044,6 +1044,10 @@ static int map_check_btf(struct bpf_map *map, const struct btf *btf,
 		}
 	}
 
+	ret = btf_check_and_fixup_fields(btf, map->record);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto free_map_tab;
+
 	if (map->ops->map_check_btf) {
 		ret = map->ops->map_check_btf(map, btf, key_type, value_type);
 		if (ret < 0)
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-11 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-11 19:31 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/26] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/26] bpf: Remove local kptr references in documentation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/26] bpf: Remove BPF_MAP_OFF_ARR_MAX Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/26] bpf: Fix copy_map_value, zero_map_value Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/26] bpf: Support bpf_list_head in map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/26] bpf: Rename RET_PTR_TO_ALLOC_MEM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/26] bpf: Rename MEM_ALLOC to MEM_RINGBUF Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/26] bpf: Refactor btf_struct_access Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/26] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/26] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 11/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-14  8:25   ` Dan Carpenter
2022-11-14  9:11     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-14  9:38       ` Dan Carpenter
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 12/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 13/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 14/26] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 15/26] bpf: Drop kfunc bits from btf_check_func_arg_match Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 16/26] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 17/26] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 18/26] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 19/26] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 20/26] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 21/26] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 22/26] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 23/26] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 24/26] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 25/26] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 26/26] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221111193224.876706-11-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
    --cc=delyank@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox