linux-trace-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>
To: Shuran Liu <electronlsr@gmail.com>
Cc: song@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
	haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	mhiramat@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: fix bpf_d_path() helper prototype
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:22:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aS3q-wLcRFuCGuUG@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251201143813.5212-1-electronlsr@gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:38:11PM +0800, Shuran Liu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this series fixes a verifier regression for bpf_d_path() introduced by
> commit 37cce22dbd51 ("bpf: verifier: Refactor helper access type
> tracking") and adds a small selftest to exercise the helper from an
> LSM program.
> 
> Commit 37cce22dbd51 started distinguishing read vs write accesses
> performed by helpers. bpf_d_path()'s buffer argument was left as
> ARG_PTR_TO_MEM without MEM_WRITE, so the verifier could incorrectly
> assume that the buffer contents are unchanged across the helper call
> and base its optimizations on this wrong assumption.
> 
> In practice this showed up as a misbehaving LSM BPF program that calls
> bpf_d_path() and then does a simple prefix comparison on the returned
> path: the program would sometimes take the "mismatch" branch even
> though both bytes being compared were actually equal.

FTR, I strongly encourage any new BPF LSM implementation to consider
using the newer BPF kfunc alternative instead, being
bpf_path_d_path().

> Patch 1 fixes bpf_d_path()'s helper prototype by marking the buffer
> argument as ARG_PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_WRITE, so that the verifier correctly
> models the write to the caller-provided buffer.

This is the correct thing to do, appreciate you sending through the
fix.

> Patch 2 adds a minimal selftest under tools/testing/selftests/bpf that
> hooks bprm_check_security, calls bpf_d_path() on a binary under /tmp/,
> and verifies that the prefix comparison on the returned path keeps
> working.

Makes sense to add a test for this regression, but please also see my
comments against this patch.

> On my local setup, tools/testing/selftests/bpf does not build fully
> due to unrelated tests using newer helpers. I validated this series by
> manually reproducing the issue with a small LSM program and by
> building and running only the new d_path_lsm test on kernels with and
> without patch 1 applied.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shuran Liu
> 
> Shuran Liu (2):
>   bpf: mark bpf_d_path() buffer as writeable
>   selftests/bpf: add regression test for bpf_d_path()
> 
>  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c                      |  2 +-
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path_lsm.c     | 27 ++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/d_path_lsm.bpf.c      | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path_lsm.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/d_path_lsm.bpf.c
> 
> -- 
> 2.52.0
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2025-12-01 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-01 14:38 [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: fix bpf_d_path() helper prototype Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: mark bpf_d_path() buffer as writeable Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 18:48   ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-01 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: add regression test for bpf_d_path() Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 19:16   ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-01 19:22 ` Matt Bobrowski [this message]

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=aS3q-wLcRFuCGuUG@google.com \
    --to=mattbobrowski@google.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=electronlsr@gmail.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).