From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ast@kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 17:52:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59FC9EC6.3060900@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171103143135.bnlwu7hmtgmgjdri@destiny>
On 11/03/2017 03:31 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:12:13AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>>
>> one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:
>>
>> On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
>>> index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
>>> @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
>>> locked:1, /* Program image locked? */
>>> gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
>>> cb_access:1, /* Is control block accessed? */
>>> - dst_needed:1; /* Do we need dst entry? */
>>> + dst_needed:1, /* Do we need dst entry? */
>>> + kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
>>> kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
>>> enum bpf_prog_type type; /* Type of BPF program */
>>> u32 len; /* Number of filter blocks */
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>>> prog->dst_needed = 1;
>>> if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
>>> bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
>>> + if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
>>> + prog->kprobe_override = 1;
>>> if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
>>> /* If we tail call into other programs, we
>>> * cannot make any assumptions since they can
>>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> @@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
>>> + if (prog->kprobe_override &&
>>> + !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
>>> + bpf_prog_put(prog);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>
>> Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
>> and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?
>>
>> Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
>> the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
>> helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
>> instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
>> to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.
>>
>> We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
>> checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
>> can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?
>
> So if I'm reading this right there's no way to know what we'll tail call at any
> given point, so I need to go back to my previous iteration of this patch and
> always save the state of the kprobe in the per-cpu variable to make sure we
> don't use bpf_override_return in the wrong case?
Yeah.
> The tail call functions won't be in the BPF_PROG_ARRAY right? It'll be just
> some other arbitrary function? If that's the case then we really need something
> like this
With BPF_PROG_ARRAY you mean BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY or the prog array
for the tracing/multiprog attach point? The program you're calling into
is inside the BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY map, but can change at any time
and can have nesting as well.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/
>
> and I need to bring that back right? Thanks,
I'm afraid so. The thing with skb cb_access which was brought up there is
that once you have a tail call in the prog you cannot make any assumptions
anymore, therefore the cb_access flag is set to 1 so we save/restore for
those cases precautionary since it could be accessed or not later on. In
your case I think this wouldn't work since legitimate bpf kprobes progs could
use tail calls today, so setting prog->kprobe_override there would prevent
attaching for non-kprobes due to subsequent flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE
check.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-03 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-02 14:37 [PATCH 0/2][v4] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection Josef Bacik
2017-11-02 14:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper Josef Bacik
2017-11-02 23:12 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-11-03 14:31 ` Josef Bacik
2017-11-03 16:52 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2017-11-03 21:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-11-02 14:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] samples/bpf: add a test for bpf_override_return Josef Bacik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-11-07 20:28 [PATCH 0/2][v5] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection Josef Bacik
2017-11-07 20:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper Josef Bacik
2017-11-08 2:28 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-11-10 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-11-10 17:14 ` Josef Bacik
2017-11-11 8:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-11-11 11:51 ` Josef Bacik
2017-11-12 6:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-11-12 10:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-11-13 15:57 ` Josef Bacik
2017-11-15 7:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-11-01 17:00 [PATCH 0/2][v3] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection Josef Bacik
2017-11-01 17:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper Josef Bacik
2017-11-01 17:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-11-02 1:08 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-10-31 15:45 [PATCH 0/2][v2] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection Josef Bacik
2017-10-31 15:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper Josef Bacik
2017-11-01 4:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-10-30 21:19 [PATCH 0/2] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection Josef Bacik
2017-10-30 21:19 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper Josef Bacik
2017-10-31 1:35 ` 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=59FC9EC6.3060900@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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