From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/6] bpf: Add a ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR argument type
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 08:23:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKrc1Rz_qr5R50vJ2H7-K+9AzBVQZ4OMgGEno+8r6sHpw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABRcYmJO5+tFtGuL9pdtFqLnBV7fGugEjaPbNRtJ3iXpbs3kFg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:35 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:54 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a const
> > > pointer to somewhere in a read-only map value. It also checks that this
> > > pointer is followed by a zero character before the end of the map value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
> > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > index 77d1d8c65b81..c160526fc8bf 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ enum bpf_arg_type {
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_PERCPU_BTF_ID, /* pointer to in-kernel percpu type */
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_FUNC, /* pointer to a bpf program function */
> > > ARG_PTR_TO_STACK_OR_NULL, /* pointer to stack or NULL */
> > > + ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR, /* pointer to a null terminated read-only string */
> > > __BPF_ARG_TYPE_MAX,
> > > };
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > index 852541a435ef..5f46dd6f3383 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > @@ -4787,6 +4787,7 @@ static const struct bpf_reg_types spin_lock_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_MAP_VALU
> > > static const struct bpf_reg_types percpu_btf_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_PERCPU_BTF_ID } };
> > > static const struct bpf_reg_types func_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_FUNC } };
> > > static const struct bpf_reg_types stack_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_STACK } };
> > > +static const struct bpf_reg_types const_str_ptr_types = { .types = { PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE } };
> > >
> > > static const struct bpf_reg_types *compatible_reg_types[__BPF_ARG_TYPE_MAX] = {
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_KEY] = &map_key_value_types,
> > > @@ -4817,6 +4818,7 @@ static const struct bpf_reg_types *compatible_reg_types[__BPF_ARG_TYPE_MAX] = {
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_PERCPU_BTF_ID] = &percpu_btf_ptr_types,
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_FUNC] = &func_ptr_types,
> > > [ARG_PTR_TO_STACK_OR_NULL] = &stack_ptr_types,
> > > + [ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR] = &const_str_ptr_types,
> > > };
> > >
> > > static int check_reg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> > > @@ -5067,6 +5069,45 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> > > if (err)
> > > return err;
> > > err = check_ptr_alignment(env, reg, 0, size, true);
> > > + } else if (arg_type == ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR) {
> > > + struct bpf_map *map = reg->map_ptr;
> > > + int map_off;
> > > + u64 map_addr;
> > > + char *str_ptr;
> > > +
> > > + if (reg->type != PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE || !map ||
> >
> > I think the 'type' check is redundant,
> > since check_reg_type() did it via compatible_reg_types.
> > If so it's probably better to remove it here ?
> >
> > '!map' looks unnecessary. Can it ever happen? If yes, it's a verifier bug.
> > For example in check_mem_access() we just deref reg->map_ptr without checking
> > which, I think, is correct.
>
> I agree with all of the above. I only thought it's better to be safe
> than sorry but if you'd like I could follow up with a patch that
> removes some checks?
...
> Sure, does not hurt. I can also follow up with a patch unless if you
> prefer doing it yourself.
Please send a follow up patch.
I consider this kind of "safe than sorry" to be defensive programming that
promotes less-thinking-is-fine-because-its-faster-to-code style.
I'm sure you've seen my rants against defensive programming in the past :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-20 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-19 15:52 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Add a snprintf eBPF helper Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/6] bpf: Factorize bpf_trace_printk and bpf_seq_printf Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/6] bpf: Add a ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR argument type Florent Revest
2021-04-19 22:54 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-04-20 12:35 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-20 15:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2021-04-22 8:41 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/6] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/6] libbpf: Initialize the bpf_seq_printf parameters array field by field Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/6] libbpf: Introduce a BPF_SNPRINTF helper macro Florent Revest
2021-04-19 15:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a series of tests for bpf_snprintf Florent Revest
2021-04-23 22:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-26 10:10 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-26 16:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-26 21:08 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-27 6:35 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-04-27 9:50 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-27 18:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-28 14:59 ` Florent Revest
2021-05-05 6:55 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-05-05 14:25 ` Florent Revest
2021-04-19 19:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Add a snprintf eBPF helper Andrii Nakryiko
2021-04-20 12:02 ` Florent Revest
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=CAADnVQKrc1Rz_qr5R50vJ2H7-K+9AzBVQZ4OMgGEno+8r6sHpw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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).