[PATCH 0/2][v4] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection

[PATCH 0/2][v4] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection

[Josef Bacik]

I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes in his
tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
somebody on the tracing side.

v3->v4:
- fix a build error found by kbuild test bot (I didn't wait long enough
  apparently.)
- Added a warning message as per Daniels suggestion.

v2->v3:
- added a ->kprobe_override flag to bpf_prog.
- added some sanity checks to disallow attaching bpf progs that have
  ->kprobe_override set that aren't for ftrace kprobes.
- added the trace_kprobe_ftrace helper to check if the trace_event_call is a
  ftrace kprobe.
- renamed bpf_kprobe_state to bpf_kprobe_override, fixed it so we only read this
  value in the kprobe path, and thus only write to it if we're overriding or
  clearing the override.

v1->v2:
- moved things around to make sure that bpf_override_return could really only be
  used for an ftrace kprobe.
- killed the special return values from trace_call_bpf.
- renamed pc_modified to bpf_kprobe_state so bpf_override_return could tell if
  it was being called from an ftrace kprobe context.
- reworked the logic in kprobe_perf_func to take advantage of bpf_kprobe_state.
- updated the test as per Alexei's review.

- Original message -

A lot of our error paths are not well tested because we have no good way of
injecting errors generically.  Some subystems (block, memory) have ways to
inject errors, but they are random so it's hard to get reproduceable results.

With BPF we can add determinism to our error injection.  We can use kprobes and
other things to verify we are injecting errors at the exact case we are trying
to test.  This patch gives us the tool to actual do the error injection part.
It is very simple, we just set the return value of the pt_regs we're given to
whatever we provide, and then override the PC with a dummy function that simply
returns.

Right now this only works on x86, but it would be simple enough to expand to
other architectures.  Thanks,

Josef

[PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

[Josef Bacik]

From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>

Error injection is sloppy and very ad-hoc.  BPF could fill this niche
perfectly with it's kprobe functionality.  We could make sure errors are
only triggered in specific call chains that we care about with very
specific situations.  Accomplish this with the bpf_override_funciton
helper.  This will modify the probe'd callers return value to the
specified value and set the PC to an override function that simply
returns, bypassing the originally probed function.  This gives us a nice
clean way to implement systematic error injection for all of our code
paths.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
---
 arch/Kconfig                     |  3 +++
 arch/x86/Kconfig                 |  1 +
 arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h   |  4 ++++
 arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h    |  5 +++++
 arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
 include/linux/filter.h           |  3 ++-
 include/linux/trace_events.h     |  1 +
 include/uapi/linux/bpf.h         |  7 ++++++-
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c            |  2 ++
 kernel/events/core.c             |  7 +++++++
 kernel/trace/Kconfig             | 11 +++++++++++
 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c         | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c      | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 kernel/trace/trace_probe.h       |  6 ++++++
 14 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
index d789a89cb32c..4fb618082259 100644
--- a/arch/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/Kconfig
@@ -195,6 +195,9 @@ config HAVE_OPTPROBES
 config HAVE_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
 	bool
 
+config HAVE_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
+	bool
+
 config HAVE_NMI
 	bool
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 971feac13506..5126d2750dd0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ config X86
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_XZ
 	select HAVE_KPROBES
 	select HAVE_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
+	select HAVE_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
 	select HAVE_KRETPROBES
 	select HAVE_KVM
 	select HAVE_LIVEPATCH			if X86_64
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
index 6cf65437b5e5..c6c3b1f4306a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
@@ -67,6 +67,10 @@ extern const int kretprobe_blacklist_size;
 void arch_remove_kprobe(struct kprobe *p);
 asmlinkage void kretprobe_trampoline(void);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
+extern void arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function(struct pt_regs *regs);
+#endif
+
 /* Architecture specific copy of original instruction*/
 struct arch_specific_insn {
 	/* copy of the original instruction */
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
index 91c04c8e67fa..f04e71800c2f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
@@ -108,6 +108,11 @@ static inline unsigned long regs_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	return regs->ax;
 }
 
+static inline void regs_set_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long rc)
+{
+	regs->ax = rc;
+}
+
 /*
  * user_mode(regs) determines whether a register set came from user
  * mode.  On x86_32, this is true if V8086 mode was enabled OR if the
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
index 041f7b6dfa0f..3c455bf490cb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
@@ -97,3 +97,17 @@ int arch_prepare_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
 	p->ainsn.boostable = false;
 	return 0;
 }
+
+asmlinkage void override_func(void);
+asm(
+	".type override_func, @function\n"
+	"override_func:\n"
+	"	ret\n"
+	".size override_func, .-override_func\n"
+);
+
+void arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+	regs->ip = (unsigned long)&override_func;
+}
+NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function);
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
 				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
 				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
 				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
-				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
+				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
+				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
 	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
 	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
 	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */
diff --git a/include/linux/trace_events.h b/include/linux/trace_events.h
index fc6aeca945db..be8bd5a8efaa 100644
--- a/include/linux/trace_events.h
+++ b/include/linux/trace_events.h
@@ -522,6 +522,7 @@ do {									\
 struct perf_event;
 
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct pt_regs, perf_trace_regs);
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_kprobe_override);
 
 extern int  perf_trace_init(struct perf_event *event);
 extern void perf_trace_destroy(struct perf_event *event);
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 0b7b54d898bd..1ad5b87a42f6 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -673,6 +673,10 @@ union bpf_attr {
  *     @buf: buf to fill
  *     @buf_size: size of the buf
  *     Return : 0 on success or negative error code
+ *
+ * int bpf_override_return(pt_regs, rc)
+ *	@pt_regs: pointer to struct pt_regs
+ *	@rc: the return value to set
  */
 #define __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER(FN)		\
 	FN(unspec),			\
@@ -732,7 +736,8 @@ union bpf_attr {
 	FN(xdp_adjust_meta),		\
 	FN(perf_event_read_value),	\
 	FN(perf_prog_read_value),	\
-	FN(getsockopt),
+	FN(getsockopt),			\
+	FN(override_return),
 
 /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which helper
  * function eBPF program intends to call
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			prog->dst_needed = 1;
 		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
 			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
+		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
+			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
 		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
 			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
 			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
+	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
+	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
+		bpf_prog_put(prog);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	if (is_tracepoint || is_syscall_tp) {
 		int off = trace_event_get_offsets(event->tp_event);
 
diff --git a/kernel/trace/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/Kconfig
index 434c840e2d82..9dc0deeaad2b 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig
@@ -518,6 +518,17 @@ config FUNCTION_PROFILER
 
 	  If in doubt, say N.
 
+config BPF_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
+	bool "Enable BPF programs to override a kprobed function"
+	depends on BPF_EVENTS
+	depends on KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
+	depends on HAVE_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
+	depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
+	default n
+	help
+	 Allows BPF to override the execution of a probed function and
+	 set a different return value.  This is used for error injection.
+
 config FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD
 	def_bool y
 	depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 136aa6bb0422..26be195a4e39 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
 #include <linux/filter.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 #include <linux/ctype.h>
+#include <linux/kprobes.h>
+#include <asm/kprobes.h>
+
+#include "trace_probe.h"
 #include "trace.h"
 
 u64 bpf_get_stackid(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5);
@@ -76,6 +80,29 @@ unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace_event_call *call, void *ctx)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(trace_call_bpf);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
+BPF_CALL_2(bpf_override_return, struct pt_regs *, regs, unsigned long, rc)
+{
+	__this_cpu_write(bpf_kprobe_override, 1);
+	regs_set_return_value(regs, rc);
+	arch_ftrace_kprobe_override_function(regs);
+	return 0;
+}
+#else
+BPF_CALL_2(bpf_override_return, struct pt_regs *, regs, unsigned long, rc)
+{
+	return -EINVAL;
+}
+#endif
+
+static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_override_return_proto = {
+	.func		= bpf_override_return,
+	.gpl_only	= true,
+	.ret_type	= RET_INTEGER,
+	.arg1_type	= ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
+	.arg2_type	= ARG_ANYTHING,
+};
+
 BPF_CALL_3(bpf_probe_read, void *, dst, u32, size, const void *, unsafe_ptr)
 {
 	int ret;
@@ -551,6 +578,10 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto *kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func
 		return &bpf_get_stackid_proto;
 	case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read_value:
 		return &bpf_perf_event_read_value_proto;
+	case BPF_FUNC_override_return:
+		pr_warn_ratelimited("%s[%d] is installing a program with bpf_override_return helper that may cause unexpected behavior!",
+				    current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
+		return &bpf_override_return_proto;
 	default:
 		return tracing_func_proto(func_id);
 	}
@@ -766,6 +797,10 @@ int perf_event_attach_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event,
 	struct bpf_prog_array *new_array;
 	int ret = -EEXIST;
 
+	/* Kprobe override only works for ftrace based kprobes. */
+	if (prog->kprobe_override && !trace_kprobe_ftrace(event->tp_event))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	mutex_lock(&bpf_event_mutex);
 
 	if (event->prog)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
index abf92e478cfb..8e3c9ec1faf7 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct trace_kprobe {
 	(offsetof(struct trace_kprobe, tp.args) +	\
 	(sizeof(struct probe_arg) * (n)))
 
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_kprobe_override);
 
 static nokprobe_inline bool trace_kprobe_is_return(struct trace_kprobe *tk)
 {
@@ -87,6 +88,12 @@ static nokprobe_inline unsigned long trace_kprobe_nhit(struct trace_kprobe *tk)
 	return nhit;
 }
 
+int trace_kprobe_ftrace(struct trace_event_call *call)
+{
+	struct trace_kprobe *tk = (struct trace_kprobe *)call->data;
+	return kprobe_ftrace(&tk->rp.kp);
+}
+
 static int register_kprobe_event(struct trace_kprobe *tk);
 static int unregister_kprobe_event(struct trace_kprobe *tk);
 
@@ -1170,7 +1177,7 @@ static int kretprobe_event_define_fields(struct trace_event_call *event_call)
 #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
 
 /* Kprobe profile handler */
-static void
+static int
 kprobe_perf_func(struct trace_kprobe *tk, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	struct trace_event_call *call = &tk->tp.call;
@@ -1179,12 +1186,29 @@ kprobe_perf_func(struct trace_kprobe *tk, struct pt_regs *regs)
 	int size, __size, dsize;
 	int rctx;
 
-	if (bpf_prog_array_valid(call) && !trace_call_bpf(call, regs))
-		return;
+	if (bpf_prog_array_valid(call)) {
+		int ret;
+
+		ret = trace_call_bpf(call, regs);
+
+		/*
+		 * We need to check and see if we modified the pc of the
+		 * pt_regs, and if so clear the kprobe and return 1 so that we
+		 * don't do the instruction skipping.  Also reset our state so
+		 * we are clean the next pass through.
+		 */
+		if (__this_cpu_read(bpf_kprobe_override)) {
+			__this_cpu_write(bpf_kprobe_override, 0);
+			reset_current_kprobe();
+			return 1;
+		}
+		if (!ret)
+			return 0;
+	}
 
 	head = this_cpu_ptr(call->perf_events);
 	if (hlist_empty(head))
-		return;
+		return 0;
 
 	dsize = __get_data_size(&tk->tp, regs);
 	__size = sizeof(*entry) + tk->tp.size + dsize;
@@ -1193,13 +1217,14 @@ kprobe_perf_func(struct trace_kprobe *tk, struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	entry = perf_trace_buf_alloc(size, NULL, &rctx);
 	if (!entry)
-		return;
+		return 0;
 
 	entry->ip = (unsigned long)tk->rp.kp.addr;
 	memset(&entry[1], 0, dsize);
 	store_trace_args(sizeof(*entry), &tk->tp, regs, (u8 *)&entry[1], dsize);
 	perf_trace_buf_submit(entry, size, rctx, call->event.type, 1, regs,
 			      head, NULL, NULL);
+	return 0;
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_perf_func);
 
@@ -1275,6 +1300,7 @@ static int kprobe_register(struct trace_event_call *event,
 static int kprobe_dispatcher(struct kprobe *kp, struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	struct trace_kprobe *tk = container_of(kp, struct trace_kprobe, rp.kp);
+	int ret = 0;
 
 	raw_cpu_inc(*tk->nhit);
 
@@ -1282,9 +1308,9 @@ static int kprobe_dispatcher(struct kprobe *kp, struct pt_regs *regs)
 		kprobe_trace_func(tk, regs);
 #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
 	if (tk->tp.flags & TP_FLAG_PROFILE)
-		kprobe_perf_func(tk, regs);
+		ret = kprobe_perf_func(tk, regs);
 #endif
-	return 0;	/* We don't tweek kernel, so just return 0 */
+	return ret;
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(kprobe_dispatcher);
 
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
index 903273c93e61..adbb3f7d1fb5 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
@@ -253,6 +253,7 @@ struct symbol_cache;
 unsigned long update_symbol_cache(struct symbol_cache *sc);
 void free_symbol_cache(struct symbol_cache *sc);
 struct symbol_cache *alloc_symbol_cache(const char *sym, long offset);
+int trace_kprobe_ftrace(struct trace_event_call *call);
 #else
 /* uprobes do not support symbol fetch methods */
 #define fetch_symbol_u8			NULL
@@ -278,6 +279,11 @@ alloc_symbol_cache(const char *sym, long offset)
 {
 	return NULL;
 }
+
+static inline int trace_kprobe_ftrace(struct trace_event_call *call)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
 #endif /* CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS */
 
 struct probe_arg {
-- 
2.7.5

[PATCH 2/2] samples/bpf: add a test for bpf_override_return

[Josef Bacik]

From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>

This adds a basic test for bpf_override_return to verify it works.  We
override the main function for mounting a btrfs fs so it'll return
-ENOMEM and then make sure that trying to mount a btrfs fs will fail.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
---
 samples/bpf/Makefile                      |  4 ++++
 samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh       | 15 +++++++++++++++
 samples/bpf/tracex7_kern.c                | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c                | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h            |  7 ++++++-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h |  3 ++-
 6 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh
 create mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7_kern.c
 create mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c

diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
index ea2b9e6135f3..83d06bc1f710 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ hostprogs-y += tracex3
 hostprogs-y += tracex4
 hostprogs-y += tracex5
 hostprogs-y += tracex6
+hostprogs-y += tracex7
 hostprogs-y += test_probe_write_user
 hostprogs-y += trace_output
 hostprogs-y += lathist
@@ -58,6 +59,7 @@ tracex3-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) tracex3_user.o
 tracex4-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) tracex4_user.o
 tracex5-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) tracex5_user.o
 tracex6-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) tracex6_user.o
+tracex7-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) tracex7_user.o
 load_sock_ops-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) load_sock_ops.o
 test_probe_write_user-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) test_probe_write_user_user.o
 trace_output-objs := bpf_load.o $(LIBBPF) trace_output_user.o
@@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ always += tracex3_kern.o
 always += tracex4_kern.o
 always += tracex5_kern.o
 always += tracex6_kern.o
+always += tracex7_kern.o
 always += sock_flags_kern.o
 always += test_probe_write_user_kern.o
 always += trace_output_kern.o
@@ -153,6 +156,7 @@ HOSTLOADLIBES_tracex3 += -lelf
 HOSTLOADLIBES_tracex4 += -lelf -lrt
 HOSTLOADLIBES_tracex5 += -lelf
 HOSTLOADLIBES_tracex6 += -lelf
+HOSTLOADLIBES_tracex7 += -lelf
 HOSTLOADLIBES_test_cgrp2_sock2 += -lelf
 HOSTLOADLIBES_load_sock_ops += -lelf
 HOSTLOADLIBES_test_probe_write_user += -lelf
diff --git a/samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh b/samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh
new file mode 100755
index 000000000000..e68b9ee6814b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+
+rm -f testfile.img
+dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile.img bs=1M seek=1000 count=1
+DEVICE=$(losetup --show -f testfile.img)
+mkfs.btrfs -f $DEVICE
+mkdir tmpmnt
+./tracex7 $DEVICE
+if [ $? -eq 0 ]
+then
+	echo "SUCCESS!"
+else
+	echo "FAILED!"
+fi
+losetup -d $DEVICE
diff --git a/samples/bpf/tracex7_kern.c b/samples/bpf/tracex7_kern.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1ab308a43e0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/samples/bpf/tracex7_kern.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+#include <uapi/linux/ptrace.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
+#include <linux/version.h>
+#include "bpf_helpers.h"
+
+SEC("kprobe/open_ctree")
+int bpf_prog1(struct pt_regs *ctx)
+{
+	unsigned long rc = -12;
+
+	bpf_override_return(ctx, rc);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+u32 _version SEC("version") = LINUX_VERSION_CODE;
diff --git a/samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c b/samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8a52ac492e8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+#define _GNU_SOURCE
+
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include "libbpf.h"
+#include "bpf_load.h"
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv)
+{
+	FILE *f;
+	char filename[256];
+	char command[256];
+	int ret;
+
+	snprintf(filename, sizeof(filename), "%s_kern.o", argv[0]);
+
+	if (load_bpf_file(filename)) {
+		printf("%s", bpf_log_buf);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	snprintf(command, 256, "mount %s tmpmnt/", argv[1]);
+	f = popen(command, "r");
+	ret = pclose(f);
+
+	return ret ? 0 : 1;
+}
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 4a4b6e78c977..3756dde69834 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -673,6 +673,10 @@ union bpf_attr {
  *     @buf: buf to fill
  *     @buf_size: size of the buf
  *     Return : 0 on success or negative error code
+ *
+ * int bpf_override_return(pt_regs, rc)
+ *	@pt_regs: pointer to struct pt_regs
+ *	@rc: the return value to set
  */
 #define __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER(FN)		\
 	FN(unspec),			\
@@ -732,7 +736,8 @@ union bpf_attr {
 	FN(xdp_adjust_meta),		\
 	FN(perf_event_read_value),	\
 	FN(perf_prog_read_value),	\
-	FN(getsockopt),
+	FN(getsockopt),			\
+	FN(override_return),
 
 /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which helper
  * function eBPF program intends to call
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
index abfa4c5c8527..086733298d5e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
@@ -81,7 +81,8 @@ static int (*bpf_perf_event_read_value)(void *map, unsigned long long flags,
 static int (*bpf_perf_prog_read_value)(void *ctx, void *buf,
 				       unsigned int buf_size) =
 	(void *) BPF_FUNC_perf_prog_read_value;
-
+static int (*bpf_override_return)(void *ctx, unsigned long rc) =
+	(void *) BPF_FUNC_override_return;
 
 /* llvm builtin functions that eBPF C program may use to
  * emit BPF_LD_ABS and BPF_LD_IND instructions
-- 
2.7.5

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

[Daniel Borkmann]

Hi Josef,

one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:

On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
>   				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
>   				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
>   				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
> -				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> +				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> +				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
>   	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
>   	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
>   	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>   			prog->dst_needed = 1;
>   		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
>   			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
> +		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
> +			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
>   		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
>   			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
>   			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>
> +	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
> +	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
> +	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
> +		bpf_prog_put(prog);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?

Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.

We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?

>   	if (is_tracepoint || is_syscall_tp) {
>   		int off = trace_event_get_offsets(event->tp_event);

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

[Josef Bacik]

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:12:13AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Hi Josef,
> 
> one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:
> 
> On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
> >   				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
> >   				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
> >   				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
> > -				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> > +				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> > +				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
> >   	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
> >   	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
> >   	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */
> [...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >   			prog->dst_needed = 1;
> >   		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
> >   			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
> > +		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
> > +			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
> >   		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
> >   			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
> >   			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   	}
> > 
> > +	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
> > +	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
> > +	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
> > +		bpf_prog_put(prog);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> 
> Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
> and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?
> 
> Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
> the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
> helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
> instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
> to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.
> 
> We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
> checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
> can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?
> 

So if I'm reading this right there's no way to know what we'll tail call at any
given point, so I need to go back to my previous iteration of this patch and
always save the state of the kprobe in the per-cpu variable to make sure we
don't use bpf_override_return in the wrong case?

The tail call functions won't be in the BPF_PROG_ARRAY right?  It'll be just
some other arbitrary function?  If that's the case then we really need something
like this

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/

and I need to bring that back right?  Thanks,

Josef

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 11/03/2017 03:31 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:12:13AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>>
>> one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:
>>
>> On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
>>> index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
>>> @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
>>>    				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
>>>    				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
>>>    				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
>>> -				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
>>> +				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
>>> +				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
>>>    	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
>>>    	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
>>>    	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>>>    			prog->dst_needed = 1;
>>>    		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
>>>    			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
>>> +		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
>>> +			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
>>>    		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
>>>    			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
>>>    			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can
>>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> @@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>>    	}
>>>
>>> +	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
>>> +	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
>>> +	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
>>> +		bpf_prog_put(prog);
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	}
>>
>> Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
>> and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?
>>
>> Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
>> the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
>> helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
>> instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
>> to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.
>>
>> We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
>> checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
>> can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?
>
> So if I'm reading this right there's no way to know what we'll tail call at any
> given point, so I need to go back to my previous iteration of this patch and
> always save the state of the kprobe in the per-cpu variable to make sure we
> don't use bpf_override_return in the wrong case?

Yeah.

> The tail call functions won't be in the BPF_PROG_ARRAY right?  It'll be just
> some other arbitrary function?  If that's the case then we really need something
> like this

With BPF_PROG_ARRAY you mean BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY or the prog array
for the tracing/multiprog attach point? The program you're calling into
is inside the BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY map, but can change at any time
and can have nesting as well.

> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/
>
> and I need to bring that back right?  Thanks,

I'm afraid so. The thing with skb cb_access which was brought up there is
that once you have a tail call in the prog you cannot make any assumptions
anymore, therefore the cb_access flag is set to 1 so we save/restore for
those cases precautionary since it could be accessed or not later on. In
your case I think this wouldn't work since legitimate bpf kprobes progs could
use tail calls today, so setting prog->kprobe_override there would prevent
attaching for non-kprobes due to subsequent flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE
check.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:52:22PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 03:31 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:12:13AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > Hi Josef,
> > > 
> > > one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:
> > > 
> > > On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > @@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
> > > >    				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
> > > >    				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
> > > >    				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
> > > > -				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> > > > +				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
> > > > +				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
> > > >    	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
> > > >    	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
> > > >    	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > @@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > > >    			prog->dst_needed = 1;
> > > >    		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
> > > >    			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
> > > > +		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
> > > > +			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
> > > >    		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
> > > >    			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
> > > >    			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > > @@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
> > > >    		return -EINVAL;
> > > >    	}
> > > > 
> > > > +	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
> > > > +	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
> > > > +	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
> > > > +		bpf_prog_put(prog);
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +	}
> > > 
> > > Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
> > > and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?
> > > 
> > > Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
> > > the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
> > > helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
> > > instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
> > > to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.
> > > 
> > > We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
> > > checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
> > > can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?
> > 
> > So if I'm reading this right there's no way to know what we'll tail call at any
> > given point, so I need to go back to my previous iteration of this patch and
> > always save the state of the kprobe in the per-cpu variable to make sure we
> > don't use bpf_override_return in the wrong case?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> > The tail call functions won't be in the BPF_PROG_ARRAY right?  It'll be just
> > some other arbitrary function?  If that's the case then we really need something
> > like this
> 
> With BPF_PROG_ARRAY you mean BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY or the prog array
> for the tracing/multiprog attach point? The program you're calling into
> is inside the BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY map, but can change at any time
> and can have nesting as well.
> 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/
> > 
> > and I need to bring that back right?  Thanks,
> 
> I'm afraid so. The thing with skb cb_access which was brought up there is
> that once you have a tail call in the prog you cannot make any assumptions
> anymore, therefore the cb_access flag is set to 1 so we save/restore for
> those cases precautionary since it could be accessed or not later on. In
> your case I think this wouldn't work since legitimate bpf kprobes progs could
> use tail calls today, so setting prog->kprobe_override there would prevent
> attaching for non-kprobes due to subsequent flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE
> check.

how about preventing programs that use bpf_override_return to be
store into prog_array? imo that would be cleaner solution.
doing tail_call into them is kinda useless anyway.
Then we can keep the bit and fast path.