From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2875C4332F for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:07:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1671818874; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=lj++1NhlyPvgudtfIrkIS4DoO3j+HuYTC2GKPL5Ncb8=; b=SpJsEt8RgWl9hxpTplriFxnjZaO40AzmR28no/0LnuUxpuqj60edHPSH8V7a9KRSww1Byu RrZF5HX9Yi5ythRA7niBxMhm7gYO+OLKt69Bdqfh5p5G7pvPJV+Bcua/dvHlyAb58Evl01 H3zpjB4+4Hi2b/1OWbGrqdLTsn7HDbU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-237-22jS8v99OTeOJ6aZVYhMOQ-1; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:07:51 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 22jS8v99OTeOJ6aZVYhMOQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66998811E6E; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DACB1120AC4; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD03519465B3; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3471319465B1 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 0E236111F3BB; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast06.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05E291120AC4 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC3DA185A794 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-f42.google.com (mail-ed1-f42.google.com [209.85.208.42]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-324-CpJ02U5gM8mCOEk8c8E5fg-1; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:04:00 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CpJ02U5gM8mCOEk8c8E5fg-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f42.google.com with SMTP id s5so7977412edc.12 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:03:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=NX1tt41u8tKT001HVadYNycV8ZIECcTltktEVY9NK3k=; b=vAGpxQjLpMlD2F7lQ+NBDnbwA33tiPM1Zp4o3vqscgqzgk8tUdTzFb+4iCwZWN9hKc yUsUTnF21cIihQoShv7xRWZKBdFiu2d1jocjUdB4A9LotLK+uErPfkliXlBV3Rv/gHzR KTKgk/5Y9OPc/FJi+ddGW97FiA96iOilhNaem4ZtwFWxD84Y5yneP2k4RelbPURom593 y4XGwPqr4jP3PtuqixpJAzYCPBbfaHfCqehEkBJD+03hxQLSt3nTu5Tn4YaWVppfDHE5 wUmNURW8/z4Ev2U3Tpv/Xk+VKZafoc69cg+hBlrR9WRSWaPMiP1UJ1YRp4Xi152tR+nT jOAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpkgnnkT5FAN+6/s8JHSJi+tXu3cI/ROp09M/7eMBraEEvGH8Ym zzTp1n6M7Z0lp4RsAoJbGul+eovgHkP3OQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXscWnIduGHXvwcUdb9MidO1Ga0DjUbBqlx19ArLlmx9wRX3Xi2rcPOlugpGkagZhonFRbdybQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:501f:b0:461:5e1b:85b5 with SMTP id p31-20020a056402501f00b004615e1b85b5mr13649882eda.2.1671818638718; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:03:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from krava (2001-1ae9-1c2-4c00-726e-c10f-8833-ff22.ip6.tmcz.cz. [2001:1ae9:1c2:4c00:726e:c10f:8833:ff22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id eg4-20020a056402288400b004714b6cce2dsm1719244edb.20.2022.12.23.10.03.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:03:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jiri Olsa X-Google-Original-From: Jiri Olsa Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:03:56 +0100 To: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: restore the ebpf audit UNLOAD id field Message-ID: References: <20221222001343.489117-1-paul@paul-moore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:07:46 +0000 X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Burn Alting , Alexei Starovoitov , linux-audit@redhat.com, sdf@google.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:58:37AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:37 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 6:20 PM Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:19 PM wrote: > > > > > On 12/21, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > When changing the ebpf program put() routines to support being called > > > > > > from within IRQ context the program ID was reset to zero prior to > > > > > > generating the audit UNLOAD record, which obviously rendered the ID > > > > > > field bogus (always zero). This patch resolves this by adding a new > > > > > > field, bpf_prog_aux::id_audit, which is set when the ebpf program is > > > > > > allocated an ID and never reset, ensuring a valid ID field, > > > > > > regardless of the state of the original ID field, bpf_prox_aud::id. > > > > > > > > > > > I also modified the bpf_audit_prog() logic used to associate the > > > > > > AUDIT_BPF record with other associated records, e.g. @ctx != NULL. > > > > > > Instead of keying off the operation, it now keys off the execution > > > > > > context, e.g. '!in_irg && !irqs_disabled()', which is much more > > > > > > appropriate and should help better connect the UNLOAD operations with > > > > > > the associated audit state (other audit records). > > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > > > As an note to future bug hunters, I did briefly consider removing the > > > > > > ID reset in bpf_prog_free_id(), as it would seem that once the > > > > > > program is removed from the idr pool it can no longer be found by its > > > > > > ID value, but commit ad8ad79f4f60 ("bpf: offload: free program id > > > > > > when device disappears") seems to imply that it is beneficial to > > > > > > reset the ID value. Perhaps as a secondary indicator that the ebpf > > > > > > program is unbound/orphaned. > > > > > > > > > > That seems like the way to go imho. Can we have some extra 'invalid_id' > > > > > bitfield in the bpf_prog so we can set it in bpf_prog_free_id and > > > > > check in bpf_prog_free_id (for this offloaded use-case)? Because > > > > > having two ids and then keeping track about which one to use, depending > > > > > on the context, seems more fragile? > > > > > > > > I would definitely prefer to keep just a single ID value, and that was > > > > the first approach I took when drafting this patch, but when looking > > > > through the git log it looked like there was some desire to reset the > > > > ID to zero on free. Not being an expert on the ebpf kernel code I > > > > figured I would just write the patch up this way and make a comment > > > > about not zero'ing out the ID in the commit description so we could > > > > have a discussion about it. > > > > > > > > I'm not seeing any other comments, so I'll go ahead with putting > > > > together a v2 that sets an invalid flag/bit and I'll post that for > > > > further discussion/review. > > > > > > great, perf suffers the same issue: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/Y3SRWVoycV290S16@krava/ > > > > > > any chance you could include it as well? I can send a patch > > > later if needed > > > > Hi Jiri, > > > > I'm pretty sure the current approach recommended by Stanislav, to > > never reset/zero the ID and instead mark it as invalid via a flag in > > the bpf_prog struct, should resolve the perf problem as well. ok, I misunderstood > > I probably should elaborate on this a bit more, in the case of > perf_event_bpf_event() the getter which checks the valid_id flag isn't > used, rather a direct access of bpf_prog_aux::__id is done so that the > ID can be retrieved even after it is free'd/marked-invalid. Here is > the relevant code snippet for the patch: > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c > index aefc1e08e015..c24e897d27f1 100644 > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > @@ -9001,7 +9001,11 @@ void perf_event_bpf_event(struct bpf_prog *prog, > }, > .type = type, > .flags = flags, > - .id = prog->aux->id, > + /* > + * don't use bpf_prog_get_id() as the id may be marked > + * invalid on PERF_BPF_EVENT_PROG_UNLOAD events > + */ > + .id = prog->aux->__id, looks good > }, > }; > > > My time > > is a little short at the moment due to the holidays, but perhaps with > > a little luck I'll get a new revision of the patch posted soon > > (today?) and you can take a look and give it a test. Are you > > subscribed to the linux-audit and/or bpf mailing lists? If not I can > > CC you directly on the next revision. bpf list is fine thanks, jirka -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit