From: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
kafai@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add kptr_xchg to may_be_acquire_function check
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:33:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <deb5310a-5ff5-0612-61f2-90d78a0bb147@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP01T74k86cwBk22M=YgY=Vao196_wDezvmHjk5u_Nry98A6hQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/14/22 2:30 AM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 at 01:46, Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> The may_be_acquire_function check is a weaker version of
>> is_acquire_function that only uses bpf_func_id to determine whether a
>> func may be acquiring a reference. Most funcs which acquire a reference
>> do so regardless of their input, so bpf_func_id is all that's necessary
>> to make an accurate determination. However, map_lookup_elem only
>> acquires when operating on certain MAP_TYPEs, so commit 64d85290d79c
>> ("bpf: Allow bpf_map_lookup_elem for SOCKMAP and SOCKHASH") added the
>> may_be check.
>>
>> Any helper which always acquires a reference should pass both
>> may_be_acquire_function and is_acquire_function checks. Recently-added
>> kptr_xchg passes the latter but not the former. This patch resolves this
>> discrepancy and does some refactoring such that the list of functions
>> which always acquire is in one place so future updates are in sync.
>>
>
> Thanks for the fix.
> I actually didn't add this on purpose, because the reason for using
> the may_be_acquire_function (in check_refcount_ok) doesn't apply to
> kptr_xchg, but maybe that was a poor choice on my part. I'm actually
> not sure of the need for may_be_acquire_function, and
> check_refcount_ok.
>
> Can we revisit why iit is needed? It only prevents
> ARG_PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON (which is not the only arg type that may be
> refcounted) from being argument type of acquire functions. What is the
> reason behind this? Should we rename arg_type_may_be_refcounted to a
> less confusing name? It probably only applies to socket lookup
> helpers.
>
I'm just starting to dive into this reference acquire/release stuff, so I was
also hoping someone could clarify the semantics here :).
Seems like the purpose of check_refcount_ok is to 1) limit helpers to one
refcounted arg - currently determined by arg_type_may_be_refcounted, which was
added as arg_type_is_refcounted in [0]; and 2) disallow helpers which acquire
a reference from taking refcounted args. The reasoning behind 2) isn't clear to
me but my best guess based on [1] is that there's some delineation between
"helpers which cast a refcounted thing but don't acquire" and helpers that
acquire.
Maybe we can add similar type tags to OBJ_RELEASE, which you added in
[2], to tag args which are casted in this manner and avoid hardcoding
ARG_PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON. Or at least rename arg_type_may_be_refcounted now that
other things may be refcounted but don't need similar casting treatment.
[0]: fd978bf7fd31 ("bpf: Add reference tracking to verifier")
[1]: 1b986589680a ("bpf: Fix bpf_tcp_sock and bpf_sk_fullsock issue related to bpf_sk_release")
[2]: 8f14852e8911 ("bpf: Tag argument to be released in bpf_func_proto")
>> Fixes: c0a5a21c25f3 ("bpf: Allow storing referenced kptr in map")
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Sent to bpf-next instead of bpf as kptr_xchg not passing
>> may_be_acquire_function isn't currently breaking anything, just
>> logically inconsistent.
>>
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 26e7e787c20a..df4b923e77de 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -477,13 +477,30 @@ static bool type_may_be_null(u32 type)
>> return type & PTR_MAYBE_NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +/* These functions acquire a resource that must be later released
>> + * regardless of their input
>> + */
>> +static bool __check_function_always_acquires(enum bpf_func_id func_id)
>> +{
>> + switch (func_id) {
>> + case BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp:
>> + case BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_udp:
>> + case BPF_FUNC_skc_lookup_tcp:
>> + case BPF_FUNC_ringbuf_reserve:
>> + case BPF_FUNC_kptr_xchg:
>> + return true;
>> + default:
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static bool may_be_acquire_function(enum bpf_func_id func_id)
>> {
>> - return func_id == BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_udp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_skc_lookup_tcp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_ringbuf_reserve;
>> + /* See is_acquire_function for the conditions under which funcs
>> + * not in __check_function_always_acquires acquire a resource
>> + */
>> + return __check_function_always_acquires(func_id) ||
>> + func_id == BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem;
>> }
>>
>> static bool is_acquire_function(enum bpf_func_id func_id,
>> @@ -491,11 +508,7 @@ static bool is_acquire_function(enum bpf_func_id func_id,
>> {
>> enum bpf_map_type map_type = map ? map->map_type : BPF_MAP_TYPE_UNSPEC;
>>
>> - if (func_id == BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_udp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_skc_lookup_tcp ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_ringbuf_reserve ||
>> - func_id == BPF_FUNC_kptr_xchg)
>> + if (__check_function_always_acquires(func_id))
>> return true;
>>
>> if (func_id == BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem &&
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-14 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-13 23:45 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Add kptr_xchg to may_be_acquire_function check Dave Marchevsky
2022-07-14 6:30 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-07-14 17:33 ` Dave Marchevsky [this message]
2022-07-15 11:49 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-07-15 18:01 ` Joanne Koong
2022-07-16 21:00 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-07-19 0:36 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-07-19 5:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=deb5310a-5ff5-0612-61f2-90d78a0bb147@fb.com \
--to=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
/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