From: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:04:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABRcYmLPCVxuC7fYSygMQfNj5L5Ji=k3b8o88fxLxgOV_uYoNQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210323032137.yv23z25zjz45prvy@ast-mbp>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:21 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:02:08PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote:
> >
> > +struct bpf_snprintf_buf {
> > + char buf[MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY][MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN];
> > +};
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bpf_snprintf_buf, bpf_snprintf_buf);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> > +
> > +BPF_CALL_5(bpf_snprintf, char *, out, u32, out_size, char *, fmt, u64 *, args,
> > + u32, args_len)
> > +{
> > + int err, i, buf_used, copy_size, fmt_cnt = 0, memcpy_cnt = 0;
> > + u64 params[MAX_SNPRINTF_VARARGS];
> > + struct bpf_snprintf_buf *bufs;
> > +
> > + buf_used = this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(buf_used > 1)) {
>
> this can trigger only if the helper itself gets preempted and
> another bpf prog will run on the same cpu and will call into this helper
> again, right?
> If so, how about adding preempt_disable here to avoid this case?
Ah, neat, that sounds like a good idea indeed. This was really just
cargo-culted from bpf_seq_printf but as part of my grand unification
attempt for the various printf-like helpers, I can try to make it use
preempt_disable as well yes.
> It won't prevent the case where kprobe is inside snprintf core,
> so the counter is still needed, but it wouldn't trigger by accident.
Good point, I will keep it around then.
> Also since bufs are not used always, how about grabbing the
> buffers only when %p or %s are seen in fmt?
> After snprintf() is done it would conditionally do:
> if (bufs_were_used) {
> this_cpu_dec(bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> preempt_enable();
> }
> This way simple bpf_snprintf won't ever hit EBUSY.
Absolutely, it would be nice. :)
> > + err = -EBUSY;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + bufs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_snprintf_buf);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The verifier has already done most of the heavy-work for us in
> > + * check_bpf_snprintf_call. We know that fmt is well formatted and that
> > + * args_len is valid. The only task left is to convert some of the
> > + * arguments. For the %s and %pi* specifiers, we need to read buffers
> > + * from a kernel address during the helper call.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; fmt[i] != '\0'; i++) {
> > + if (fmt[i] != '%')
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (fmt[i + 1] == '%') {
> > + i++;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* fmt[i] != 0 && fmt[last] == 0, so we can access fmt[i + 1] */
> > + i++;
> > +
> > + /* skip optional "[0 +-][num]" width formating field */
> > + while (fmt[i] == '0' || fmt[i] == '+' || fmt[i] == '-' ||
> > + fmt[i] == ' ')
> > + i++;
> > + if (fmt[i] >= '1' && fmt[i] <= '9') {
> > + i++;
> > + while (fmt[i] >= '0' && fmt[i] <= '9')
> > + i++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (fmt[i] == 's') {
> > + void *unsafe_ptr = (void *)(long)args[fmt_cnt];
> > +
> > + err = strncpy_from_kernel_nofault(bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt],
> > + unsafe_ptr,
> > + MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN);
> > + if (err < 0)
> > + bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt][0] = '\0';
> > + params[fmt_cnt] = (u64)(long)bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt];
>
> how about:
> char buf[512]; instead?
> instead of memcpy_cnt++ remember how many bytes of the buf were used and
> copy next arg after that.
> The scratch space would be used more efficiently.
> The helper would potentially return ENOSPC if the first string printed via %s
> consumed most of the 512 space and the second string doesn't fit.
> But the verifier-time if (memcpy_cnt >= MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY) can be removed.
> Ten small %s will work fine.
Cool! That is also a good idea :)
> We can allocate a page per-cpu when this helper is used by prog and free
> that page when all progs with bpf_snprintf are unloaded.
> But extra complexity is probably not worth it. I would start with 512 per-cpu.
> It's going to be enough for most users.
Yes, let's maybe keep that for later. I think there is already enough
complexity going into the printf-like helpers unification patch.
> Overall looks great. Cannot wait for v2 :)
Ahah wait until you see that patch! :D
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-23 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-10 22:02 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] Add a snprintf eBPF helper Florent Revest
2021-03-10 22:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Add a ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR argument type Florent Revest
2021-03-11 0:04 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-11 1:00 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-16 1:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-16 23:58 ` Florent Revest
2021-03-17 0:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-17 0:45 ` Florent Revest
2021-03-17 1:02 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-17 10:32 ` Florent Revest
2021-03-10 22:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper Florent Revest
2021-03-11 0:14 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-11 3:12 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-11 3:12 ` [RFC PATCH] bpf: check_bpf_snprintf_call() can be static kernel test robot
2021-03-16 1:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-16 13:18 ` Florent Revest
2021-03-23 3:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-03-23 14:04 ` Florent Revest [this message]
2021-03-10 22:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] libbpf: Initialize the bpf_seq_printf parameters array field by field Florent Revest
2021-03-16 4:36 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-16 4:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-16 22:43 ` Florent Revest
2021-03-16 23:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-10 22:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] libbpf: Introduce a BPF_SNPRINTF helper macro Florent Revest
2021-03-16 4:39 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-03-10 22:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf Florent Revest
2021-03-16 4:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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='CABRcYmLPCVxuC7fYSygMQfNj5L5Ji=k3b8o88fxLxgOV_uYoNQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).