On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:38 AM zhangmingyi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:39 AM Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:27 AM Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 6:00 AM zhangmingyi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06/06,Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 06/05, Xin Liu wrote:
> > > > > > From: zhangmingyi <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > The sample_cb of the ring_buffer__new interface can transfer NULL. However,
> > > > > > the system does not check whether sample_cb is NULL during
> > > > > > ring_buffer__poll, null pointer is used.
> > > >
> > > > > What is the point of calling ring_buffer__new with sample_cb == NULL?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, as you said, passing sample_cb in ring_buffer__new to NULL doesn't
> > > > make sense, and few people use it that way, but that doesn't prevent this
> > > > from being a allowed and supported scenario. And when ring_buffer__poll is
> > > > called, it leads to a segmentation fault (core dump), which I think needs
> > > > to be fixed to ensure the security quality of libbpf.
> > >
> > > I dunno. I'd argue that passing a NULL to ring_buffer__new is an API
> > > misuse. Maybe ring_buffer__new should return -EINVAL instead when
> > > passed NULL sample_cb? Although, we don't usually have those checks
> > > for the majority of the arguments in libbpf...
> >
> > Right. I'd say we should add a proper doc comment specifying all
> > arguments and which ones are optional or not. And make it explicit
> > that callback is not optional. If we start checking every possible
> > pointer for NULL, libbpf will be littered with NULL checks, I'm not
> > sure that's good.
>
> I agree, we should add a proper doc comment specifying all
> arguments and which ones are optional or not.
> However, why does the external interface API in libbpf not verify input
> parameters or add verification where risky operations may exist?
> What's more, i think sample_cb=NULL is not strictly a mistake or
> prohibited use, and is meaningless.
It's not really customary in C to do it? So maybe you can follow up
with the update to the doc?
The kindergarten is over, you pass NULL you get SIGSEGV :-D
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:55 AM Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:38 AM zhangmingyi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:39 AM Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:27 AM Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 6:00 AM zhangmingyi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 06/06,Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 06/05, Xin Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > From: zhangmingyi <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The sample_cb of the ring_buffer__new interface can transfer NULL. However,
> > > > > > > the system does not check whether sample_cb is NULL during
> > > > > > > ring_buffer__poll, null pointer is used.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What is the point of calling ring_buffer__new with sample_cb == NULL?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, as you said, passing sample_cb in ring_buffer__new to NULL doesn't
> > > > > make sense, and few people use it that way, but that doesn't prevent this
> > > > > from being a allowed and supported scenario. And when ring_buffer__poll is
> > > > > called, it leads to a segmentation fault (core dump), which I think needs
> > > > > to be fixed to ensure the security quality of libbpf.
> > > >
> > > > I dunno. I'd argue that passing a NULL to ring_buffer__new is an API
> > > > misuse. Maybe ring_buffer__new should return -EINVAL instead when
> > > > passed NULL sample_cb? Although, we don't usually have those checks
> > > > for the majority of the arguments in libbpf...
> > >
> > > Right. I'd say we should add a proper doc comment specifying all
> > > arguments and which ones are optional or not. And make it explicit
> > > that callback is not optional. If we start checking every possible
> > > pointer for NULL, libbpf will be littered with NULL checks, I'm not
> > > sure that's good.
> >
> > I agree, we should add a proper doc comment specifying all
> > arguments and which ones are optional or not.
> > However, why does the external interface API in libbpf not verify input
> > parameters or add verification where risky operations may exist?
> > What's more, i think sample_cb=NULL is not strictly a mistake or
> > prohibited use, and is meaningless.
>
> It's not really customary in C to do it? So maybe you can follow up
> with the update to the doc?
Yep, we do not check every `struct bpf_object *` pointer to be non-NULL.
Having said that, I don't think it's such a big deal to make this
callback optional by assigning a no-op callback.
So let's definitely update doc comments to be explicit about one way
or the other. For the callback, let's just not do it on every record.
Just once during initialization would be better.
>
> The kindergarten is over, you pass NULL you get SIGSEGV :-D