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?
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
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/
and I need to bring that back right? Thanks,
Josef
From 1582997858782919160@xxx Thu Nov 02 23:13:20 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582965462915356698
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread