bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF programs
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:52:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200529205217.kfwc646svq5cb4bv@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzaVHD7HyRDQGRCUKBDOZq-LcZpHrBoOjuOP+443Xc+Vaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 01:38:40PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > >         if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS)
> > > >                 return check_struct_ops_btf_id(env);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -10762,8 +10801,29 @@ static int check_attach_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > > >                         if (ret)
> > > >                                 verbose(env, "%s() is not modifiable\n",
> > > >                                         prog->aux->attach_func_name);
> > > > +               } else if (prog->aux->sleepable) {
> > > > +                       switch (prog->type) {
> > > > +                       case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING:
> > > > +                               /* fentry/fexit progs can be sleepable only if they are
> > > > +                                * attached to ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION or security_*() funcs.
> > > > +                                */
> > > > +                               ret = check_attach_modify_return(prog, addr);
> > >
> > > I was so confused about this piece... check_attach_modify_return()
> > > should probably be renamed to something else, it's not for fmod_ret
> > > only anymore.
> >
> > why? I think the name is correct. The helper checks whether target
> > allows modifying its return value. It's a first while list.
> 
> check_attach_modify_return() name implies to me that it's strictly for
> fmod_ret-specific attachment checks, that's all. It's minor, if you
> feel like name is appropriate I'm fine with it.

ahh. i see the confusion. I've read check_attach_modify_return as
whether target kernel function allows tweaking it's return value.
whereas it sounds that you've read it as it's check whether target
func is ok for modify_return bpf program type.

> 
> > When that passes the black list applies via check_sleepable_blacklist() function.
> >
> > I was considering using whitelist for sleepable as well, but that's overkill.
> > Too much overlap with mod_ret.
> > Imo check whitelist + check blacklist for white list exceptions is clean enough.
> 
> I agree about whitelist+blacklist, my only point was that
> check_attach_modify_return() is not communicating that it's a
> whitelist. check_sleepable_blacklist() is clear as day,
> check_sleepable_whitelist() would be as clear, even if internally it
> (for now) just calls into check_attach_modify_return(). Eventually it
> might be evolved beyond what's in check_attach_modify_return(). Not a
> big deal and can be changed later, if necessary.

got it. I will wrap it into another helper.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-29 20:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-29  4:38 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Introduce minimal support for sleepable progs Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-29  4:38 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Fix use-after-free in fmod_ret check Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-29  4:38 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF programs Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-29  8:25   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-29 20:12     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-29 20:38       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-29 20:52         ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-05-31  2:19   ` kbuild test robot
2020-05-31  4:33   ` kbuild test robot
2020-05-29  4:38 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] libbpf: support sleepable progs Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-29  4:38 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: basic sleepable tests 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=20200529205217.kfwc646svq5cb4bv@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF programs' \
    /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

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).