Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/9] bpf: Add MEM_RDONLY for helper args that are pointers to rdonly mem.

From: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/9] bpf: Add MEM_RDONLY for helper args that are pointers to rdonly mem.
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:04:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+khW7g5P3-ipVLZ8KSZZUf=3_F4uMEY4FhbDH7J5kqL08ggYg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+khW7h3VM+7CESWeFgheMkg20JckbxidC6Quy-02_kFJL96tA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 7:49 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:24 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:22 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some helper functions may modify its arguments, for example,
> > > bpf_d_path, bpf_get_stack etc. Previously, their argument types
> > > were marked as ARG_PTR_TO_MEM, which is compatible with read-only
> > > mem types, such as PTR_TO_RDONLY_BUF. Therefore it's legitimate
> > > to modify a read-only memory by passing it into one of such helper
> > > functions.
> > >
> > > This patch tags the bpf_args compatible with immutable memory with
> > > MEM_RDONLY flag. The arguments that don't have this flag will be
> > > only compatible with mutable memory types, preventing the helper
> > > from modifying a read-only memory. The bpf_args that have
> > > MEM_RDONLY are compatible with both mutable memory and immutable
> > > memory.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/bpf.h      |  4 ++-
> > >  kernel/bpf/btf.c         |  2 +-
> > >  kernel/bpf/cgroup.c      |  2 +-
> > >  kernel/bpf/helpers.c     |  8 ++---
> > >  kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c     |  2 +-
> > >  kernel/bpf/syscall.c     |  2 +-
> > >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c    | 14 +++++++--
> > >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 26 ++++++++--------
> > >  net/core/filter.c        | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > >  9 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> > >
[...]
> > > @@ -5074,6 +5074,7 @@ static int check_reg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> > >         struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env), *reg = &regs[regno];
> > >         enum bpf_reg_type expected, type = reg->type;
> > >         const struct bpf_reg_types *compatible;
> > > +       u32 compatible_flags;
> > >         int i, j;
> > >
> > >         compatible = compatible_reg_types[base_type(arg_type)];
> > > @@ -5082,6 +5083,13 @@ static int check_reg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> > >                 return -EFAULT;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       /* If arg_type is tagged with MEM_RDONLY, it's compatible with both
> > > +        * RDONLY and non-RDONLY reg values. Therefore fold this flag before
> > > +        * comparison. PTR_MAYBE_NULL is similar.
> > > +        */
> > > +       compatible_flags = arg_type & (MEM_RDONLY | PTR_MAYBE_NULL);
> > > +       type &= ~compatible_flags;
> > > +
> >
> > wouldn't
> >
> > type &= ~MEM_RDONLY; /* clear read-only flag, if any */
> > type &= ~PTR_MAYBE_NULL; /* clear nullable flag, if any */
> >
> > be cleaner and more straightforward?
> >
> >
>
> No problem. Sounds good to me.
>

I just realized the suggested transformation is wrong. Whether to fold
the flag depends on whether arg_type has the flag. So it should
instead be

if (arg_type & MEM_RDONLY)
  type &= ~MEM_RDONLY;

or

type &= ~(arg_type & MEM_RDONLY);

> > >         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(compatible->types); i++) {
> > >                 expected = compatible->types[i];
> > >                 if (expected == NOT_INIT)
> >
> > [...]