BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, mejedi@gmail.com,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v2 5/8] bpf: check changes_pkt_data property for extension programs
Date: Mon,  9 Dec 2024 20:10:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241210041100.1898468-6-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241210041100.1898468-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

When processing calls to global sub-programs, verifier decides whether
to invalidate all packet pointers in current state depending on the
changes_pkt_data property of the global sub-program.

Because of this, an extension program replacing a global sub-program
must be compatible with changes_pkt_data property of the sub-program
being replaced.

This commit:
- adds changes_pkt_data flag to struct bpf_prog_aux:
  - this flag is set in check_cfg() for main sub-program;
  - in jit_subprogs() for other sub-programs;
- modifies bpf_check_attach_btf_id() to check changes_pkt_data flag;
- moves call to check_attach_btf_id() after the call to check_cfg(),
  because it needs changes_pkt_data flag to be set:

    bpf_check:
      ...                             ...
    - check_attach_btf_id             resolve_pseudo_ldimm64
      resolve_pseudo_ldimm64   -->    bpf_prog_is_offloaded
      bpf_prog_is_offloaded           check_cfg
      check_cfg                     + check_attach_btf_id
      ...                             ...

The following fields are set by check_attach_btf_id():
- env->ops
- prog->aux->attach_btf_trace
- prog->aux->attach_func_name
- prog->aux->attach_func_proto
- prog->aux->dst_trampoline
- prog->aux->mod
- prog->aux->saved_dst_attach_type
- prog->aux->saved_dst_prog_type
- prog->expected_attach_type

Neither of these fields are used by resolve_pseudo_ldimm64() or
bpf_prog_offload_verifier_prep() (for netronome and netdevsim
drivers), so the reordering is safe.

Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/bpf.h   |  1 +
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index eaee2a819f4c..fe392d074973 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1527,6 +1527,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
 	bool is_extended; /* true if extended by freplace program */
 	bool jits_use_priv_stack;
 	bool priv_stack_requested;
+	bool changes_pkt_data;
 	u64 prog_array_member_cnt; /* counts how many times as member of prog_array */
 	struct mutex ext_mutex; /* mutex for is_extended and prog_array_member_cnt */
 	struct bpf_arena *arena;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 6a29b68cebd6..c2e5d0e6e3d0 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16872,6 +16872,7 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 		}
 	}
 	ret = 0; /* cfg looks good */
+	env->prog->aux->changes_pkt_data = env->subprog_info[0].changes_pkt_data;
 
 err_free:
 	kvfree(insn_state);
@@ -20361,6 +20362,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 		func[i]->aux->num_exentries = num_exentries;
 		func[i]->aux->tail_call_reachable = env->subprog_info[i].tail_call_reachable;
 		func[i]->aux->exception_cb = env->subprog_info[i].is_exception_cb;
+		func[i]->aux->changes_pkt_data = env->subprog_info[i].changes_pkt_data;
 		if (!i)
 			func[i]->aux->exception_boundary = env->seen_exception;
 		func[i] = bpf_int_jit_compile(func[i]);
@@ -22225,6 +22227,12 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
 					"Extension programs should be JITed\n");
 				return -EINVAL;
 			}
+			if (prog->aux->changes_pkt_data &&
+			    !aux->func[subprog]->aux->changes_pkt_data) {
+				bpf_log(log,
+					"Extension program changes packet data, while original does not\n");
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
 		}
 		if (!tgt_prog->jited) {
 			bpf_log(log, "Can attach to only JITed progs\n");
@@ -22690,10 +22698,6 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr, __u3
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto skip_full_check;
 
-	ret = check_attach_btf_id(env);
-	if (ret)
-		goto skip_full_check;
-
 	ret = resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(env);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto skip_full_check;
@@ -22708,6 +22712,10 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr, __u3
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto skip_full_check;
 
+	ret = check_attach_btf_id(env);
+	if (ret)
+		goto skip_full_check;
+
 	ret = mark_fastcall_patterns(env);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto skip_full_check;
-- 
2.47.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-12-10  4:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-10  4:10 [PATCH bpf v2 0/8] bpf: track changes_pkt_data property for global functions Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/8] bpf: add find_containing_subprog() utility function Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/8] bpf: refactor bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data to use helper number Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 3/8] bpf: track changes_pkt_data property for global functions Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 4/8] selftests/bpf: test for changing packet data from " Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 6/8] selftests/bpf: freplace tests for tracking of changes_packet_data Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:10 ` [PATCH bpf v2 7/8] bpf: consider that tail calls invalidate packet pointers Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10 10:35   ` Nick Zavaritsky
2024-12-10 18:23     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-12-10 18:29       ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10 18:31         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-12-10 18:52           ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10 19:00             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-12-10 19:06               ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10  4:11 ` [PATCH bpf v2 8/8] selftests/bpf: validate that tail call invalidates " Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-10 18:40 ` [PATCH bpf v2 0/8] bpf: track changes_pkt_data property for global functions 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=20241210041100.1898468-6-eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mejedi@gmail.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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