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;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 May 2023 00:33:41 +0200
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>
Cc:     Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: reject blacklisted symbols in kprobe_multi to avoid
 recursive trap
Message-ID: <ZF6+xU6sGGyGEhjE@krava>
References: <20230510122045.2259-1-zegao@tencent.com>
 <6308b8e0-8a54-e574-a312-0a97cfbf810c@meta.com>
 <ZFvUH+p0ebcgnwEg@krava>
 <CAD8CoPC_=d+Aocp8pnSi9cbU6HWBNc697bKUS1UydtB-4DFzrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ee28e791-b3ab-3dfd-161b-4e7ec055c6ff@meta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ee28e791-b3ab-3dfd-161b-4e7ec055c6ff@meta.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:29:02AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/11/23 10:53 PM, Ze Gao wrote:
> > Yes, Jiri. Thanks for pointing it out. It's true that not all probe
> > blacklisted functions should be banned from bpf_kprobe.
> > 
> > I tried some of them, and all kprobe blacklisted symbols I hooked
> > works fine except preempt_count_{sub, add}.
> > so the takeaway here is preempt_cout_{sub, add} must be rejected at
> > least for now since kprobe_multi_link_prog_run
> > ( i.e., the fprobe handler) and rethook_trampoline_handler( i.e. the
> > rethook handler) calls preempt_cout_{sub, add}.

check BTF_SET_START(btf_id_deny) list for functions that we do not allow to
attach for tracing programs.. the direct ftrace interface used by trampolines
has likely similar limitations as fptrace_ops API used by fprobe


> > 
> > I'm considering providing a general  fprobe_blacklist framework just
> > like what kprobe does to allow others to mark
> > functions used inside fprobe handler or rethook handler as NOFPROBE to
> > avoid potential stack recursion. But only after
> > I figure out how ftrace handles recursion problems currently and why
> > it fails in the case I ran into.
> 
> A fprobe_blacklist might make sense indeed as fprobe and kprobe are quite
> different... Thanks for working on this.

+1

jirka

> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Ze
> > 
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:28 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:13:58AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 5/10/23 5:20 AM, Ze Gao wrote:
> > > > > BPF_LINK_TYPE_KPROBE_MULTI attaches kprobe programs through fprobe,
> > > > > however it does not takes those kprobe blacklisted into consideration,
> > > > > which likely introduce recursive traps and blows up stacks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > this patch adds simple check and remove those are in kprobe_blacklist
> > > > > from one fprobe during bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach. And also
> > > > > check_kprobe_address_safe is open for more future checks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > note that ftrace provides recursion detection mechanism, but for kprobe
> > > > > only, we can directly reject those cases early without turning to ftrace.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >    1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > > index 9a050e36dc6c..44c68bc06bbd 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > > @@ -2764,6 +2764,37 @@ static int get_modules_for_addrs(struct module ***mods, unsigned long *addrs, u3
> > > > >      return arr.mods_cnt;
> > > > >    }
> > > > > +static inline int check_kprobe_address_safe(unsigned long addr)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +   if (within_kprobe_blacklist(addr))
> > > > > +           return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +   else
> > > > > +           return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int check_bpf_kprobe_addrs_safe(unsigned long *addrs, int num)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +   int i, cnt;
> > > > > +   char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   for (i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> > > > > +           if (check_kprobe_address_safe((unsigned long)addrs[i])) {
> > > > > +                   lookup_symbol_name(addrs[i], symname);
> > > > > +                   pr_warn("bpf_kprobe: %s at %lx is blacklisted\n", symname, addrs[i]);
> > > > 
> > > > So user request cannot be fulfilled and a warning is issued and some
> > > > of user requests are discarded and the rest is proceeded. Does not
> > > > sound a good idea.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we should do filtering in user space, e.g., in libbpf, check
> > > > /sys/kernel/debug/kprobes/blacklist and return error
> > > > earlier? bpftrace/libbpf-tools/bcc-tools all do filtering before
> > > > requesting kprobe in the kernel.
> > > 
> > > also fprobe uses ftrace drectly without paths in kprobe, so I wonder
> > > some of the kprobe blacklisted functions are actually safe
> > > 
> > > jirka
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > +                   /* mark blacklisted symbol for remove */
> > > > > +                   addrs[i] = 0;
> > > > > +           }
> > > > > +   }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   /* remove blacklisted symbol from addrs */
> > > > > +   for (i = 0, cnt = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> > > > > +           if (addrs[i])
> > > > > +                   addrs[cnt++]  = addrs[i];
> > > > > +   }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   return cnt;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >    int bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > > > >    {
> > > > >      struct bpf_kprobe_multi_link *link = NULL;
> > > > > @@ -2859,6 +2890,12 @@ int bpf_kprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
> > > > >      else
> > > > >              link->fp.entry_handler = kprobe_multi_link_handler;
> > > > > +   cnt = check_bpf_kprobe_addrs_safe(addrs, cnt);
> > > > > +   if (!cnt) {
> > > > > +           err = -EINVAL;
> > > > > +           goto error;
> > > > > +   }
> > > > > +
> > > > >      link->addrs = addrs;
> > > > >      link->cookies = cookies;
> > > > >      link->cnt = cnt;