Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] bpf: Move is_valid_bpf_tramp_flags() to the public trampoline code

From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	<hpa@zytor.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Kiss <daniel.kiss@arm.com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Delyan Kratunov <delyank@fb.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] bpf: Move is_valid_bpf_tramp_flags() to the public trampoline code
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:35:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c6dfe9bc-07ac-62a7-0a34-12fecf0dfdaa@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220517155349.4jk5oymnjvrasw2p@MacBook-Pro.local>

On 5/17/2022 11:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 03:18:35AM -0400, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>>  
>> +static bool is_valid_bpf_tramp_flags(unsigned int flags)
>> +{
>> +	if ((flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_RESTORE_REGS) &&
>> +	    (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_SKIP_FRAME))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/* BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET is only used by bpf_struct_ops,
>> +	 * and it must be used alone.
>> +	 */
>> +	if ((flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET) &&
>> +	    (flags & ~BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int bpf_prepare_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *tr, void *image,
>> +			   void *image_end, const struct btf_func_model *m,
>> +			   u32 flags, struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks,
>> +			   void *orig_call)
>> +{
>> +	if (!is_valid_bpf_tramp_flags(flags))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	return arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(tr, image, image_end, m, flags,
>> +					   tlinks, orig_call);
>> +}
> 
> It's an overkill to introduce a new helper function just to validate
> flags that almost compile time constants.
> The flags are not user supplied.
> Please move /* BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET is only used by bpf_struct_ops ... */
> comment to bpf_struct_ops.c right before it calls arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline()
> And add a comment to trampoline.c saying that BPF_TRAMP_F_RESTORE_REGS
> and BPF_TRAMP_F_SKIP_FRAME should not be set together.
> We could add a warn_on there or in arch code, but feels like overkill.
> .

OK, will fix in next version.