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>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v8 07/22] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 21:54:15 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221117162430.1213770-8-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221117162430.1213770-1-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 45d9323d44ba..7994222f1058 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 a04e10477567..91aa9c96621f 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;
@@ -5413,6 +5474,16 @@ 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 75f86e621058..fcf17ef42d56 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -1045,6 +1045,10 @@ 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-17 16:24 [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/22] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 01/22] bpf: Fix early return in map_check_btf Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 02/22] bpf: Do btf_record_free outside map_free callback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 03/22] bpf: Do btf_record_free for outer maps Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/22] bpf: Populate field_offs for inner_map_meta Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/22] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 06/22] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 08/22] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 09/22] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 10/22] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 11/22] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 12/22] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 13/22] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 14/22] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 15/22] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 16/22] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 17/22] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 18/22] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 19/22] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 20/22] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 21/22] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-17 16:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v8 22/22] 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=20221117162430.1213770-8-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=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