From: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/7] bpf: Refactor trampoline update code
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 20:08:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200304190855.GA31073@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bza4y_H+Avry=OdQ=j6Ey-niTYLafKUwicVeutmQ3X5g=g@mail.gmail.com>
On 04-Mär 10:47, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:44 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 04-Mär 19:37, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 3/4/20 4:47 PM, KP Singh wrote:
> > > > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > As we need to introduce a third type of attachment for trampolines, the
> > > > flattened signature of arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline gets even more
> > > > complicated.
> > > >
> > > > Refactor the prog and count argument to arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline to
> > > > use bpf_tramp_progs to simplify the addition and accounting for new
> > > > attachment types.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> > > > index c498f0fffb40..9f7e0328a644 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> > > > @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
> > > > struct bpf_struct_ops_value *uvalue, *kvalue;
> > > > const struct btf_member *member;
> > > > const struct btf_type *t = st_ops->type;
> > > > + struct bpf_tramp_progs *tprogs = NULL;
> > > > void *udata, *kdata;
> > > > int prog_fd, err = 0;
> > > > void *image;
> > > > @@ -425,10 +426,18 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
> > > > goto reset_unlock;
> > > > }
> > > > + tprogs = kcalloc(BPF_TRAMP_MAX, sizeof(*tprogs), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!tprogs) {
> > > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto reset_unlock;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Looking over the code again, I'm quite certain that here's a memleak
> > > since the kcalloc() is done in the for_each_member() loop in the ops
> > > update but then going out of scope and in the exit path we only kfree
> > > the last tprogs.
> >
> > You're right, nice catch. Fixing it.
>
> There is probably no need to do many allocations as well, just one
> outside of the loop and reuse?
Yeah moved it out of the loop and before we grab the mutex, returning
an -ENOMEM directly.
Thanks for noticing this. Sending v4 now.
- KP
>
> >
> > - KP
> >
> > >
> > > > + tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].progs[0] = prog;
> > > > + tprogs[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY].nr_progs = 1;
> > > > err = arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(image,
> > > > st_map->image + PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > &st_ops->func_models[i], 0,
> > > > - &prog, 1, NULL, 0, NULL);
> > > > + tprogs, NULL);
> > > > if (err < 0)
> > > > goto reset_unlock;
> > > > @@ -469,6 +478,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
> > > > memset(uvalue, 0, map->value_size);
> > > > memset(kvalue, 0, map->value_size);
> > > > unlock:
> > > > + kfree(tprogs);
> > > > mutex_unlock(&st_map->lock);
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-04 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-04 15:47 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/7] Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RET tracing progs KP Singh
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/7] bpf: Refactor trampoline update code KP Singh
2020-03-04 18:37 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-03-04 18:44 ` KP Singh
2020-03-04 18:47 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-04 19:08 ` KP Singh [this message]
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/7] bpf: JIT helpers for fmod_ret progs KP Singh
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
2020-03-04 16:43 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] tools/libbpf: Add support " KP Singh
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/7] bpf: Add test ops for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING KP Singh
2020-03-04 15:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/7] bpf: Add selftests for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN KP Singh
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=20200304190855.GA31073@chromium.org \
--to=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=revest@chromium.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 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).