Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] bpf: Allow NULL buffers in bpf_dynptr_slice(_rw)

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:52:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 9:06 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > This is NOT for safety. You misread the code.  
> >
> > Doesn't matter, safety or optionality. skb_header_pointer() is used
> > on the fast paths of the networking stack, adding heavy handed input
> > validation to it is not okay. No sane code should be passing NULL
> > buffer to skb_header_pointer(). Please move the NULL check to the BPF
> > code so the rest of the networking stack does not have to pay the cost.
> >
> > This should be common sense. If one caller is doing something..
> > "special" the extra code should live in the caller, not the callee.
> > That's basic code hygiene.  
> 
> you're still missing the point. Pls read the whole patch series.

Could you just tell me what the point is then? The "series" is one
patch plus some tiny selftests. I don't see any documentation for
how dynptrs are supposed to work either.

As far as I can grasp this makes the "copy buffer" optional from
the kfunc-API perspective (of bpf_dynptr_slice()).

> It is _not_ input validation.
> skb_copy_bits is a slow path. One extra check doesn't affect
> performance at all. So 'fast paths' isn't a valid argument here.
> The code is reusing
>         if (likely(hlen - offset >= len))
>                 return (void *)data + offset;
> which _is_ the fast path.
> 
> What you're requesting is to copy paste
> the whole __skb_header_pointer into __skb_header_pointer2.
> Makes no sense.

No, Alexei, the whole point of skb_header_pointer() is to pass 
the secondary buffer, to make header parsing dependable.

Passing NULL buffer to skb_header_pointer() is absolutely nonsensical.
It should *not* be supported. We had enough prod problems with people
thinking that the entire header will be in the linear portion.
Then either the NIC can't parse the header, someone enables jumbo,
disables GRO, adds new HW, adds encap, etc etc and things implode.

If you want to support it in BPF that's up to you, but I think it's
entirely reasonable for me to request that you don't do such things
in general networking code. The function is 5 LoC, so a local BPF
copy seems fine. Although I'd suggest skb_header_pointer_misguided()
rather than __skb_header_pointer2() as the name :)