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 08/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in allocated objects
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 07:25:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221118015614.2013203-9-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221118015614.2013203-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Allow locking a bpf_spin_lock in an allocated object, in addition to
already supported map value pointers. The handling is similar to that of
map values, by just preserving the reg->id of PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC
as well, and adjusting process_spin_lock to work with them and remember
the id in verifier state.

Refactor the existing process_spin_lock to work with PTR_TO_BTF_ID |
MEM_ALLOC in addition to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. We need to update the
reg_may_point_to_spin_lock which is used in mark_ptr_or_null_reg to
preserve reg->id, that will be used in env->cur_state->active_spin_lock
to remember the currently held spin lock.

Also update the comment describing bpf_spin_lock implementation details
to also talk about PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC type.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c  |  2 +
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 7bc71995f17c..5bc0b9f0f306 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_spin_lock_proto = {
 	.gpl_only	= false,
 	.ret_type	= RET_VOID,
 	.arg1_type	= ARG_PTR_TO_SPIN_LOCK,
+	.arg1_btf_id    = BPF_PTR_POISON,
 };
 
 static inline void __bpf_spin_unlock_irqrestore(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
@@ -358,6 +359,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_spin_unlock_proto = {
 	.gpl_only	= false,
 	.ret_type	= RET_VOID,
 	.arg1_type	= ARG_PTR_TO_SPIN_LOCK,
+	.arg1_btf_id    = BPF_PTR_POISON,
 };
 
 void copy_map_value_locked(struct bpf_map *map, void *dst, void *src,
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 49e08c1c2c61..19467dda5dd9 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -451,10 +451,24 @@ static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
 		type == PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON;
 }
 
+static struct btf_record *reg_btf_record(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+	struct btf_record *rec = NULL;
+	struct btf_struct_meta *meta;
+
+	if (reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) {
+		rec = reg->map_ptr->record;
+	} else if (reg->type == (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
+		meta = btf_find_struct_meta(reg->btf, reg->btf_id);
+		if (meta)
+			rec = meta->record;
+	}
+	return rec;
+}
+
 static bool reg_may_point_to_spin_lock(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
 {
-	return reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE &&
-	       btf_record_has_field(reg->map_ptr->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK);
+	return btf_record_has_field(reg_btf_record(reg), BPF_SPIN_LOCK);
 }
 
 static bool type_is_rdonly_mem(u32 type)
@@ -5564,23 +5578,26 @@ int check_kfunc_mem_size_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state
 }
 
 /* Implementation details:
- * bpf_map_lookup returns PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL
+ * bpf_map_lookup returns PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL.
+ * bpf_obj_new returns PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | PTR_MAYBE_NULL.
  * Two bpf_map_lookups (even with the same key) will have different reg->id.
- * For traditional PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE the verifier clears reg->id after
- * value_or_null->value transition, since the verifier only cares about
- * the range of access to valid map value pointer and doesn't care about actual
- * address of the map element.
+ * Two separate bpf_obj_new will also have different reg->id.
+ * For traditional PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE or PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC, the verifier
+ * clears reg->id after value_or_null->value transition, since the verifier only
+ * cares about the range of access to valid map value pointer and doesn't care
+ * about actual address of the map element.
  * For maps with 'struct bpf_spin_lock' inside map value the verifier keeps
  * reg->id > 0 after value_or_null->value transition. By doing so
  * two bpf_map_lookups will be considered two different pointers that
- * point to different bpf_spin_locks.
+ * point to different bpf_spin_locks. Likewise for pointers to allocated objects
+ * returned from bpf_obj_new.
  * The verifier allows taking only one bpf_spin_lock at a time to avoid
  * dead-locks.
  * Since only one bpf_spin_lock is allowed the checks are simpler than
  * reg_is_refcounted() logic. The verifier needs to remember only
  * one spin_lock instead of array of acquired_refs.
- * cur_state->active_spin_lock remembers which map value element got locked
- * and clears it after bpf_spin_unlock.
+ * cur_state->active_spin_lock remembers which map value element or allocated
+ * object got locked and clears it after bpf_spin_unlock.
  */
 static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
 			     bool is_lock)
@@ -5588,8 +5605,10 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
 	struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env), *reg = &regs[regno];
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state;
 	bool is_const = tnum_is_const(reg->var_off);
-	struct bpf_map *map = reg->map_ptr;
 	u64 val = reg->var_off.value;
+	struct bpf_map *map = NULL;
+	struct btf *btf = NULL;
+	struct btf_record *rec;
 
 	if (!is_const) {
 		verbose(env,
@@ -5597,19 +5616,27 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
 			regno);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-	if (!map->btf) {
-		verbose(env,
-			"map '%s' has to have BTF in order to use bpf_spin_lock\n",
-			map->name);
-		return -EINVAL;
+	if (reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) {
+		map = reg->map_ptr;
+		if (!map->btf) {
+			verbose(env,
+				"map '%s' has to have BTF in order to use bpf_spin_lock\n",
+				map->name);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+	} else {
+		btf = reg->btf;
 	}
-	if (!btf_record_has_field(map->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK)) {
-		verbose(env, "map '%s' has no valid bpf_spin_lock\n", map->name);
+
+	rec = reg_btf_record(reg);
+	if (!btf_record_has_field(rec, BPF_SPIN_LOCK)) {
+		verbose(env, "%s '%s' has no valid bpf_spin_lock\n", map ? "map" : "local",
+			map ? map->name : "kptr");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
-	if (map->record->spin_lock_off != val + reg->off) {
+	if (rec->spin_lock_off != val + reg->off) {
 		verbose(env, "off %lld doesn't point to 'struct bpf_spin_lock' that is at %d\n",
-			val + reg->off, map->record->spin_lock_off);
+			val + reg->off, rec->spin_lock_off);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 	if (is_lock) {
@@ -5815,13 +5842,19 @@ static const struct bpf_reg_types int_ptr_types = {
 	},
 };
 
+static const struct bpf_reg_types spin_lock_types = {
+	.types = {
+		PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE,
+		PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC,
+	}
+};
+
 static const struct bpf_reg_types fullsock_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_SOCKET } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types scalar_types = { .types = { SCALAR_VALUE } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types context_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_CTX } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types ringbuf_mem_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RINGBUF } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types const_map_ptr_types = { .types = { CONST_PTR_TO_MAP } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types btf_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_BTF_ID } };
-static const struct bpf_reg_types spin_lock_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types percpu_btf_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_PERCPU } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types func_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_FUNC } };
 static const struct bpf_reg_types stack_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_STACK } };
@@ -5946,6 +5979,11 @@ static int check_reg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
 				return -EACCES;
 			}
 		}
+	} else if (type_is_alloc(reg->type)) {
+		if (meta->func_id != BPF_FUNC_spin_lock && meta->func_id != BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock) {
+			verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unimplemented handling of MEM_ALLOC\n");
+			return -EFAULT;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -6062,7 +6100,8 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
 		goto skip_type_check;
 
 	/* arg_btf_id and arg_size are in a union. */
-	if (base_type(arg_type) == ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID)
+	if (base_type(arg_type) == ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID ||
+	    base_type(arg_type) == ARG_PTR_TO_SPIN_LOCK)
 		arg_btf_id = fn->arg_btf_id[arg];
 
 	err = check_reg_type(env, regno, arg_type, arg_btf_id, meta);
@@ -6680,9 +6719,10 @@ static bool check_btf_id_ok(const struct bpf_func_proto *fn)
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fn->arg_type); i++) {
-		if (base_type(fn->arg_type[i]) == ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID && !fn->arg_btf_id[i])
-			return false;
-
+		if (base_type(fn->arg_type[i]) == ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID)
+			return !!fn->arg_btf_id[i];
+		if (base_type(fn->arg_type[i]) == ARG_PTR_TO_SPIN_LOCK)
+			return fn->arg_btf_id[i] == BPF_PTR_POISON;
 		if (base_type(fn->arg_type[i]) != ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID && fn->arg_btf_id[i] &&
 		    /* arg_btf_id and arg_size are in a union. */
 		    (base_type(fn->arg_type[i]) != ARG_PTR_TO_MEM ||
-- 
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 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 04/24] bpf: Populate field_offs for inner_map_meta Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
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=20221118015614.2013203-9-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.