Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: store KCOV remote handle in sk_buff

From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: store KCOV remote handle in sk_buff
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:04:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+aEQoRMO6eA7iQZf4dhOu2cD1ZbbH6TT4Rs_uQwG0PWYg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201010081431.1f2d9d0d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 5:14 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 09:54:57 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 1:16 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed,  7 Oct 2020 10:17:25 +0000 Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> > > > From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > Remote KCOV coverage collection enables coverage-guided fuzzing of the
> > > > code that is not reachable during normal system call execution. It is
> > > > especially helpful for fuzzing networking subsystems, where it is
> > > > common to perform packet handling in separate work queues even for the
> > > > packets that originated directly from the user space.
> > > >
> > > > Enable coverage-guided frame injection by adding a kcov_handle
> > > > parameter to sk_buff structure. Initialization in __alloc_skb ensures
> > > > that no socket buffer that was generated during a system call will be
> > > > missed.
> > > >
> > > > Code that is of interest and that performs packet processing should be
> > > > annotated with kcov_remote_start()/kcov_remote_stop().
> > > >
> > > > An alternative approach is to determine kcov_handle solely on the
> > > > basis of the device/interface that received the specific socket
> > > > buffer. However, in this case it would be impossible to distinguish
> > > > between packets that originated from normal background network
> > > > processes and those that were intentionally injected from the user
> > > > space.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
> > >
> > > Could you use skb_extensions for this?
> >
> > Why? If for space, this is already under a non-production ifdef.
>
> I understand, but the skb_ext infra is there for uncommon use cases
> like this one. Any particular reason you don't want to use it?
> The slight LoC increase?
>
> Is there any precedent for adding the kcov field to other performance
> critical structures?

I see. Yes, increase in complexity for no gain.
No, KCOV context wasn't added to anything as critical as sk_buff.
It seems there is no established practice both ways -- I don't see
anything debug-related in sk_buff nor in skb_ext_id...