Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210330223748.399563-1-pctammela@mojatatu.com>
 <CAADnVQK+n69_uUm6Ac1WgvqM4X0_74nXHwkYxbkWFc1F5hU98Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf4BzZmBiq_JG5-Y2u9jTZraEtyyuOJYWgKivcKk0WFCzKa8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKY_9u3VR+B=q0rPNYV1V9sr7+DG=T7786wQwMf1jrSxsKUgfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKY_9u3VR+B=q0rPNYV1V9sr7+DG=T7786wQwMf1jrSxsKUgfw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:53:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYAcUsObPj_hm3tfC-d+EHfeeHLVDD4OigPg82hiehc7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: check flags in 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()'
 and 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()'
To:     Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Joe Stringer <joe@cilium.io>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>,
        "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
        <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:29 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 =C3=A0s 04:02, Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> > > >
> > > >  BPF_CALL_2(bpf_ringbuf_submit, void *, sample, u64, flags)
> > > >  {
> > > > +       if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP | BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKE=
UP)))
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > >         bpf_ringbuf_commit(sample, flags, false /* discard */);
> > > > +
> > > >         return 0;
> > >
> > > I think ringbuf design was meant for bpf_ringbuf_submit to never fail=
.
> > > If we do flag validation it probably should be done at the verifier t=
ime.
> >
> > Oops, replied on another version already. But yes, BPF verifier relies
> > on it succeeding. I don't think we can do flags validation at BPF
> > verification time, though, because it is defined as non-const integer
> > and we do have valid cases where we dynamically determine whether to
> > FORCE_WAKEUP or NO_WAKEUP, based on application-driven criteria (e.g.,
> > amount of enqueued data).
>
> Then shouldn't we remove the flags check in 'bpf_ringbuf_output()'?

bpf_ringbuf_output() combines reserve + commit operations, so if it
performs checks before anything is reserved in ringbuf, it's ok for it
to fail and return error. So I don't see any problem there. But once
it internally reserves, it always proceeds to complete the commit.