Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 11:23:08 +0000
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
        haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, illusionist.neo@gmail.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, mykolal@fb.com, shuah@kernel.org,
        benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, memxor@gmail.com, delyank@fb.com,
        asavkov@redhat.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf RESEND 2/4] bpf: Remove size check for sk in
 bpf_skb_is_valid_access for 32-bit architecture
Message-ID: <Y2OknBtLgqTHSrvy@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20221103092118.248600-1-yangjihong1@huawei.com>
 <20221103092118.248600-3-yangjihong1@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221103092118.248600-3-yangjihong1@huawei.com>
Sender: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 05:21:16PM +0800, Yang Jihong wrote:
> The error code -EACCES is returned when bpf prog is tested in 32-bit environment,
> This is because bpf_object__relocate modifies the instruction to change memory
> size to 4 bytes, as shown in the following messages:
> 
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: matching candidate #0 <byte_off> [18342] struct __sk_buff.sk (0:30:0 @ offset 168)
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) off 168 -> 168
> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) mem_sz 8 -> 4
> 
> As a result, the bpf_skb_is_valid_access check fails. For 32-bit architecture,
> unnecessary checks need to be deleted.

Isn't the purpose of this check to ensure that the entire pointer is
written, and BPF can't write half of it?


>  	case offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk):
> -		if (type == BPF_WRITE || size != sizeof(__u64))
> -			return false;

Wouldn't "(size != sizeof(struct bpf_sock *) && size != sizeof(__u64))"
be more appropriate here, so 32-bit can only write the 32-bit pointer
or the full 64-bit value, and 64-bit can only write the 64-bit pointer?
Or is there a reason not to? bpf folk?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!