From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<martin.lau@kernel.org>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: inline map creation logic in map_create() function
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:35:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230613223533.3689589-3-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230613223533.3689589-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Currently find_and_alloc_map() performs two separate functions: some
argument sanity checking and partial map creation workflow hanling.
Neither of those functions are self-sufficient and are augmented by
further checks and initialization logic in the caller (map_create()
function). So unify all the sanity checks, permission checks, and
creation and initialization logic in one linear piece of code in
map_create() instead. This also make it easier to further enhance
permission checks and keep them located in one place.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 1cc590101e19..be885d547cde 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -109,37 +109,6 @@ const struct bpf_map_ops bpf_map_offload_ops = {
.map_mem_usage = bpf_map_offload_map_mem_usage,
};
-static struct bpf_map *find_and_alloc_map(union bpf_attr *attr)
-{
- const struct bpf_map_ops *ops;
- u32 type = attr->map_type;
- struct bpf_map *map;
- int err;
-
- if (type >= ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_map_types))
- return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
- type = array_index_nospec(type, ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_map_types));
- ops = bpf_map_types[type];
- if (!ops)
- return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
-
- if (ops->map_alloc_check) {
- err = ops->map_alloc_check(attr);
- if (err)
- return ERR_PTR(err);
- }
- if (attr->map_ifindex)
- ops = &bpf_map_offload_ops;
- if (!ops->map_mem_usage)
- return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
- map = ops->map_alloc(attr);
- if (IS_ERR(map))
- return map;
- map->ops = ops;
- map->map_type = type;
- return map;
-}
-
static void bpf_map_write_active_inc(struct bpf_map *map)
{
atomic64_inc(&map->writecnt);
@@ -1127,7 +1096,9 @@ static int map_check_btf(struct bpf_map *map, const struct btf *btf,
/* called via syscall */
static int map_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
{
+ const struct bpf_map_ops *ops;
int numa_node = bpf_map_attr_numa_node(attr);
+ u32 map_type = attr->map_type;
struct bpf_map *map;
int f_flags;
int err;
@@ -1157,6 +1128,25 @@ static int map_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
!node_online(numa_node)))
return -EINVAL;
+ /* find map type and init map: hashtable vs rbtree vs bloom vs ... */
+ map_type = attr->map_type;
+ if (map_type >= ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_map_types))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ map_type = array_index_nospec(map_type, ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_map_types));
+ ops = bpf_map_types[map_type];
+ if (!ops)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (ops->map_alloc_check) {
+ err = ops->map_alloc_check(attr);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+ }
+ if (attr->map_ifindex)
+ ops = &bpf_map_offload_ops;
+ if (!ops->map_mem_usage)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
/* Intent here is for unprivileged_bpf_disabled to block BPF map
* creation for unprivileged users; other actions depend
* on fd availability and access to bpffs, so are dependent on
@@ -1166,10 +1156,11 @@ static int map_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
if (sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled && !bpf_capable())
return -EPERM;
- /* find map type and init map: hashtable vs rbtree vs bloom vs ... */
- map = find_and_alloc_map(attr);
+ map = ops->map_alloc(attr);
if (IS_ERR(map))
return PTR_ERR(map);
+ map->ops = ops;
+ map->map_type = map_type;
err = bpf_obj_name_cpy(map->name, attr->map_name,
sizeof(attr->map_name));
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-13 22:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-13 22:35 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Clean up BPF permissions checks Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13 22:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: move unprivileged checks into map_create() and bpf_prog_load() Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13 22:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2023-06-13 22:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: centralize permissions checks for all BPF map types Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13 22:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf: keep BPF_PROG_LOAD permission checks clear of validations Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-14 22:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Clean up BPF permissions checks Stanislav Fomichev
2023-06-19 12:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20230613223533.3689589-3-andrii@kernel.org \
--to=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@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