MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211123205607.452497-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211123205607.452497-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= <maze@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:02:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CANP3RGdZq6x0NB2wKn5YG2Va=j0YHKd5DcM7_dyaKWhdyUrzOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: allow readonly direct path access for skfilter
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= <maze@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     Linux Network Development Mailing List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        BPF Mailing List <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Note: this is more of an RFC... question in patch format... is this
even a good idea?

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:56 PM Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski
<zenczykowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski <maze@google.com>
>
> skfilter bpf programs can read the packet directly via llvm.bpf.load.byte=
/
> /half/word which are 8/16/32-bit primitive bpf instructions and thus
> behave basically as well as DPA reads.  But there is no 64-bit equivalent=
,
> due to the support for the equivalent 64-bit bpf opcode never having been
> added (unclear why, there was a patch posted).
> DPA uses a slightly different mechanism, so doesn't suffer this limitatio=
n.
>
> Using 64-bit reads, 128-bit ipv6 address comparisons can be done in just
> 2 steps, instead of the 4 steps needed with llvm.bpf.word.
>
> This should hopefully allow simpler (less instructions, and possibly less
> logic and maybe even less jumps) programs.  Less jumps may also mean vast=
ly
> faster bpf verifier times (it can be exponential in the number of jumps..=
.).
>
> This can be particularly important when trying to do something like scan
> a netlink message for a pattern (2000 iteration loop) to decide whether
> a message should be dropped, or delivered to userspace (thus waking it up=
).
>
> I'm requiring CAP_NET_ADMIN because I'm not sure of the security
> implications...
>
> Tested: only build tested
> Signed-off-by: Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski <maze@google.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 331b170d9fcc..0c2e25fb9844 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -3258,6 +3258,11 @@ static bool may_access_direct_pkt_data(struct bpf_=
verifier_env *env,
>         enum bpf_prog_type prog_type =3D resolve_prog_type(env->prog);
>
>         switch (prog_type) {
> +       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER:
> +               if (meta || !capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> +                       return false;
> +               fallthrough;
> +
>         /* Program types only with direct read access go here! */
>         case BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN:
>         case BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_OUT:
> --
> 2.34.0.rc2.393.gf8c9666880-goog
>