All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v10 04/24] bpf: Populate field_offs for inner_map_meta
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 07:25:54 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221118015614.2013203-5-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221118015614.2013203-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Far too much code simply assumes that both btf_record and btf_field_offs
are set to valid pointers together, or both are unset. They go together
hand in hand as btf_record describes the special fields and
btf_field_offs is compact representation for runtime copying/zeroing.

It is very difficult to make this clear in the code when the only
exception to this universal invariant is inner_map_meta which is used
as reg->map_ptr in the verifier. This is simply a bug waiting to happen,
as in verifier context we cannot easily distinguish if PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
is coming from an inner map, and if we ever end up using field_offs for
any reason in the future, we will silently ignore the special fields for
inner map case (as NULL is not an error but unset field_offs).

Hence, simply copy field_offs from inner map together with btf_record.

While at it, refactor code to unwind properly on errors with gotos.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c b/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c
index a423130a8720..fae6a6c33e2d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd)
 	struct bpf_map *inner_map, *inner_map_meta;
 	u32 inner_map_meta_size;
 	struct fd f;
+	int ret;
 
 	f = fdget(inner_map_ufd);
 	inner_map = __bpf_map_get(f);
@@ -20,18 +21,18 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd)
 
 	/* Does not support >1 level map-in-map */
 	if (inner_map->inner_map_meta) {
-		fdput(f);
-		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto put;
 	}
 
 	if (!inner_map->ops->map_meta_equal) {
-		fdput(f);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
+		ret = -ENOTSUPP;
+		goto put;
 	}
 
 	if (btf_record_has_field(inner_map->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK)) {
-		fdput(f);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOTSUPP);
+		ret = -ENOTSUPP;
+		goto put;
 	}
 
 	inner_map_meta_size = sizeof(*inner_map_meta);
@@ -41,8 +42,8 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd)
 
 	inner_map_meta = kzalloc(inner_map_meta_size, GFP_USER);
 	if (!inner_map_meta) {
-		fdput(f);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
+		goto put;
 	}
 
 	inner_map_meta->map_type = inner_map->map_type;
@@ -50,16 +51,27 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd)
 	inner_map_meta->value_size = inner_map->value_size;
 	inner_map_meta->map_flags = inner_map->map_flags;
 	inner_map_meta->max_entries = inner_map->max_entries;
+
 	inner_map_meta->record = btf_record_dup(inner_map->record);
 	if (IS_ERR(inner_map_meta->record)) {
-		struct bpf_map *err_ptr = ERR_CAST(inner_map_meta->record);
 		/* btf_record_dup returns NULL or valid pointer in case of
 		 * invalid/empty/valid, but ERR_PTR in case of errors. During
 		 * equality NULL or IS_ERR is equivalent.
 		 */
-		kfree(inner_map_meta);
-		fdput(f);
-		return err_ptr;
+		ret = PTR_ERR(inner_map_meta->record);
+		goto free;
+	}
+	if (inner_map_meta->record) {
+		struct btf_field_offs *field_offs;
+		/* If btf_record is !IS_ERR_OR_NULL, then field_offs is always
+		 * valid.
+		 */
+		field_offs = kmemdup(inner_map->field_offs, sizeof(*inner_map->field_offs), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
+		if (!field_offs) {
+			ret = -ENOMEM;
+			goto free_rec;
+		}
+		inner_map_meta->field_offs = field_offs;
 	}
 	if (inner_map->btf) {
 		btf_get(inner_map->btf);
@@ -76,10 +88,18 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd)
 
 	fdput(f);
 	return inner_map_meta;
+free_rec:
+	btf_record_free(inner_map_meta->record);
+free:
+	kfree(inner_map_meta);
+put:
+	fdput(f);
+	return ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
 void bpf_map_meta_free(struct bpf_map *map_meta)
 {
+	kfree(map_meta->field_offs);
 	bpf_map_free_record(map_meta);
 	btf_put(map_meta->btf);
 	kfree(map_meta);
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-18  1:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-18  1:55 [PATCH bpf-next v10 00/24] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 01/24] bpf: Fix early return in map_check_btf Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 02/24] bpf: Do btf_record_free outside map_free callback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 03/24] bpf: Free inner_map_meta when btf_record_dup fails Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 05/24] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 06/24] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 07/24] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 08/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 09/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 10/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 11/24] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  3:34   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 10:37     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18 18:02       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 19:00         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18 18:08       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 19:40   ` David Vernet
2022-11-20 19:25     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 12/24] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 13/24] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 14/24] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 15/24] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 16/24] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-21 18:34   ` Nathan Chancellor
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 17/24] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 18/24] bpf: Add comments for map BTF matching requirement for bpf_list_head Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 19/24] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 20/24] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 21/24] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 22/24] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-10-11 22:44   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-11 23:02     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-10-20  0:15       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-20 14:51         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 23/24] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 24/24] selftests/bpf: Temporarily disable linked list tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-22 17:24   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18  3:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 00/24] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221118015614.2013203-5-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.