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: <20211028164357.1439102-1-revest@chromium.org> <20211028224653.qhuwkp75fridkzpw@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CABRcYmLWAp6kYJBA2g+DvNQcg-5NaAz7u51ucBMPfW0dGykZAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <204584e8-7817-f445-1e73-b23552f54c2f@gmail.com> <CABRcYmJxp6-GSDRZfBQ-_7MbaJWTM_W4Ok=nSxLVEJ3+Sn7Fpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dccc55b4-9f45-4b1c-2166-184a8979bdc6@fb.com> <CAADnVQ+pwWWumw9_--jj7e_RL=n6Q3jhe6yawuSeMJzpFi_E2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf4BzZ-YtppVG2GARkc_MNu-khqJXgS4=ThzOV4W6gic1rCxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAADnVQLKkqjnTOAqm3KeP45XsbfDATWcASJr5uoNOYT33W40OQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQLKkqjnTOAqm3KeP45XsbfDATWcASJr5uoNOYT33W40OQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 21:05:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzb4Prxt48bfX8qJ-GSMXPZU9ndkqExvPtOWzEsuK965ig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Allow bpf_d_path in perf_event_mmap
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     FILE *vm_file = vma->vm_file; /* no checking is needed, vma from
> > > > parameter which is not NULL */
> > > >     if (vm_file)
> > > >       bpf_d_path(&vm_file->f_path, path, sizeof(path));
> > >
> > > That should work.
> > > The verifier can achieve that by marking certain fields as PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL
> > > instead of PTR_TO_BTF_ID while walking such pointers.
> > > And then disallow pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL until it
> > > goes through 'if (Rx == NULL)' check inside the program and gets converted to
> > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
> > > Initially we can hard code such fields via BTF_ID(struct, file) macro.'
> > > So any pointer that results into a 'struct file' pointer will be
> > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL.
> >
> > Can we just require all helpers to check NULL if they accept
> > PTR_TO_BTF_ID? It's always been a case that PTR_TO_BTF_ID can be null.
> > We should audit all the helpers with ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID and ensure they
> > do proper validation, of course.
> >
> > Or am I missing the essence of the issue?
>
> It's not a pointer dereference. It's math on the pointer. The
> &vm_file->f_path part.

Ah, I see... Makes sense now.

> The helper can check that it's [0, few_pages] and declare it's bad.

That's basically what happens with direct memory reads, so I guess it
would be fine.

> I guess we can do that and only do what I proposed for "more than a page"
> math on the pointer. Or even disallow "add more than a page offset to
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID"
> for now, since it will cover 99% of the cases.