All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
	"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
	"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@redhat.com>,
	"Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 2/8] bpf: Be conservative during verification for invalid kfunc calls
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 23:04:18 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210830173424.1385796-3-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210830173424.1385796-1-memxor@gmail.com>

This change modifies the BPF verifier to only return error for invalid
kfunc calls specially marked by userspace (with insn->imm == 0) after
the verifier has eliminated dead instructions. This can be handled in
the fixup stage, and skip processing during add and check stages.

If such an invalid call is dropped, the fixup stage will not encounter
insn->imm as 0, otherwise it bails out and returns an error.

This can be used by userspace to use branches to call old and new kfunc
helpers across kernel versions by setting the rodata map value before
loading the BPF program, enhancing runtime portability. The next patch
introduces libbpf support for this.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index de0670a8b1df..9904b9a96b04 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1730,6 +1730,15 @@ static int add_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 func_id, s16 offset)
 		prog_aux->kfunc_tab = tab;
 	}
 
+	/* btf_idr allocates IDs from 1, so func_id == 0 is always invalid, but
+	 * instead of returning an error, be conservative and wait until the
+	 * code elimination pass before returning error, so that invalid calls
+	 * that get pruned out can be in BPF programs loaded from userspace.
+	 * It is also required that offset be 0.
+	 */
+	if (!func_id && !offset)
+		return 0;
+
 	desc_btf = find_kfunc_desc_btf(env, func_id, offset);
 	if (IS_ERR(desc_btf)) {
 		verbose(env, "failed to find BTF for kernel function\n");
@@ -6527,6 +6536,10 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 	struct btf *desc_btf;
 	int err;
 
+	/* skip for now, but return error when we find this in fixup_kfunc_call */
+	if (!insn->imm)
+		return 0;
+
 	desc_btf = find_kfunc_desc_btf(env, insn->imm, insn->off);
 	if (IS_ERR(desc_btf))
 		return PTR_ERR(desc_btf);
@@ -12658,6 +12671,11 @@ static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 {
 	const struct bpf_kfunc_desc *desc;
 
+	if (!insn->imm) {
+		verbose(env, "invalid kernel function call not eliminated in verifier pass\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	/* insn->imm has the btf func_id. Replace it with
 	 * an address (relative to __bpf_base_call).
 	 */
-- 
2.33.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-30 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-30 17:34 [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 0/8] Support kernel module function calls from eBPF Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 1/8] bpf: Introduce BPF support for kernel module function calls Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-30 20:01   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-08-30 20:03   ` kernel test robot
2021-08-30 22:19   ` kernel test robot
2021-08-30 17:34 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 3/8] libbpf: Support " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-09-01  0:55   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-09-01  2:27     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-09-01  2:59       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-09-01  3:38         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 4/8] libbpf: Resolve invalid kfunc calls with imm = 0, off = 0 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-09-01  0:35   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 5/8] tools: Allow specifying base BTF file in resolve_btfids Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 6/8] bpf: btf: Introduce helpers for dynamic BTF set registration Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 7/8] bpf: enable TCP congestion control kfunc from modules Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-31  0:16   ` kernel test robot
2021-09-01  0:48   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-08-30 17:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next RFC v1 8/8] bpf, selftests: Add basic test for module kfunc call Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-08-30 20:07   ` Alexei Starovoitov

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=20210830173424.1385796-3-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=toke@redhat.com \
    --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 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.