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>,
	Delyan Kratunov <delyank@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/26] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 01:02:08 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221111193224.876706-11-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221111193224.876706-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Ensure that there can be no ownership cycles among different types by
way of having owning objects that can hold some other type as their
element. For instance, a map value can only hold allocated objects, but
these are allowed to have another bpf_list_head. To prevent unbounded
recursion while freeing resources, elements of bpf_list_head in local
kptrs can never have a bpf_list_head which are part of list in a map
value. Later patches will verify this by having dedicated BTF selftests.

Also, to make runtime destruction easier, once btf_struct_metas is fully
populated, we can stash the metadata of the value type directly in the
metadata of the list_head fields, as that allows easier access to the
value type's layout to destruct it at runtime from the btf_field entry
of the list head itself.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/bpf.h  |  1 +
 include/linux/btf.h  |  1 +
 kernel/bpf/btf.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/syscall.c |  4 +++
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 4cd3c9e6f50b..c88f75a68893 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct btf_field_list_head {
 	struct btf *btf;
 	u32 value_btf_id;
 	u32 node_offset;
+	struct btf_record *value_rec;
 };
 
 struct btf_field {
diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
index a01a8da20021..42d8f3730a8d 100644
--- a/include/linux/btf.h
+++ b/include/linux/btf.h
@@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ int btf_find_spin_lock(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t);
 int btf_find_timer(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t);
 struct btf_record *btf_parse_fields(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
 				    u32 field_mask, u32 value_size);
+int btf_check_and_fixup_fields(const struct btf *btf, struct btf_record *rec);
 struct btf_field_offs *btf_parse_field_offs(struct btf_record *rec);
 bool btf_type_is_void(const struct btf_type *t);
 s32 btf_find_by_name_kind(const struct btf *btf, const char *name, u8 kind);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index fbcb846188e2..ef8710fab997 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -3723,6 +3723,67 @@ struct btf_record *btf_parse_fields(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type
 	return ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
+int btf_check_and_fixup_fields(const struct btf *btf, struct btf_record *rec)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	/* There are two owning types, kptr_ref and bpf_list_head. The former
+	 * only supports storing kernel types, which can never store references
+	 * to program allocated local types, atleast not yet. Hence we only need
+	 * to ensure that bpf_list_head ownership does not form cycles.
+	 */
+	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rec) || !(rec->field_mask & BPF_LIST_HEAD))
+		return 0;
+	for (i = 0; i < rec->cnt; i++) {
+		struct btf_struct_meta *meta;
+		u32 btf_id;
+
+		if (!(rec->fields[i].type & BPF_LIST_HEAD))
+			continue;
+		btf_id = rec->fields[i].list_head.value_btf_id;
+		meta = btf_find_struct_meta(btf, btf_id);
+		if (!meta)
+			return -EFAULT;
+		rec->fields[i].list_head.value_rec = meta->record;
+
+		if (!(rec->field_mask & BPF_LIST_NODE))
+			continue;
+
+		/* We need to ensure ownership acyclicity among all types. The
+		 * proper way to do it would be to topologically sort all BTF
+		 * IDs based on the ownership edges, since there can be multiple
+		 * bpf_list_head in a type. Instead, we use the following
+		 * reasoning:
+		 *
+		 * - A type can only be owned by another type in user BTF if it
+		 *   has a bpf_list_node.
+		 * - A type can only _own_ another type in user BTF if it has a
+		 *   bpf_list_head.
+		 *
+		 * We ensure that if a type has both bpf_list_head and
+		 * bpf_list_node, its element types cannot be owning types.
+		 *
+		 * To ensure acyclicity:
+		 *
+		 * When A only has bpf_list_head, ownership chain can be:
+		 *	A -> B -> C
+		 * Where:
+		 * - B has both bpf_list_head and bpf_list_node.
+		 * - C only has bpf_list_node.
+		 *
+		 * When A has both bpf_list_head and bpf_list_node, some other
+		 * type already owns it in the BTF domain, hence it can not own
+		 * another owning type through any of the bpf_list_head edges.
+		 *	A -> B
+		 * Where:
+		 * - B only has bpf_list_node.
+		 */
+		if (meta->record->field_mask & BPF_LIST_HEAD)
+			return -ELOOP;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int btf_field_offs_cmp(const void *_a, const void *_b, const void *priv)
 {
 	const u32 a = *(const u32 *)_a;
@@ -5412,6 +5473,16 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse(bpfptr_t btf_data, u32 btf_data_size,
 	}
 	btf->struct_meta_tab = struct_meta_tab;
 
+	if (struct_meta_tab) {
+		int i;
+
+		for (i = 0; i < struct_meta_tab->cnt; i++) {
+			err = btf_check_and_fixup_fields(btf, struct_meta_tab->types[i].record);
+			if (err < 0)
+				goto errout_meta;
+		}
+	}
+
 	if (log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
 		err = -ENOSPC;
 		goto errout_meta;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index c96039a4e57f..4669020bb47d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -1044,6 +1044,10 @@ static int map_check_btf(struct bpf_map *map, const struct btf *btf,
 		}
 	}
 
+	ret = btf_check_and_fixup_fields(btf, map->record);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto free_map_tab;
+
 	if (map->ops->map_check_btf) {
 		ret = map->ops->map_check_btf(map, btf, key_type, value_type);
 		if (ret < 0)
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-11 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-11 19:31 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/26] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/26] bpf: Remove local kptr references in documentation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/26] bpf: Remove BPF_MAP_OFF_ARR_MAX Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/26] bpf: Fix copy_map_value, zero_map_value Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/26] bpf: Support bpf_list_head in map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/26] bpf: Rename RET_PTR_TO_ALLOC_MEM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/26] bpf: Rename MEM_ALLOC to MEM_RINGBUF Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/26] bpf: Refactor btf_struct_access Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/26] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/26] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 11/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-13 21:31   ` kernel test robot
2022-11-14  8:25     ` Dan Carpenter
2022-11-14  9:11     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-14  9:38       ` Dan Carpenter
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 12/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 13/26] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 14/26] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 15/26] bpf: Drop kfunc bits from btf_check_func_arg_match Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 16/26] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 17/26] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 18/26] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 19/26] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 20/26] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 21/26] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 22/26] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 23/26] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 24/26] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 25/26] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-11 19:32 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 26/26] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

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=20221111193224.876706-11-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=delyank@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.