On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 9:08 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 6:30 AM Jordan Rome <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 6:27 AM Jordan Rome <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:10 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 6:26 PM Jordan Rome <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This adds a kfunc wrapper around strncpy_from_user,
> > > > > which can be called from sleepable BPF programs.
> > > > >
> > > > > This matches the non-sleepable 'bpf_probe_read_user_str'
> > > > > helper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Rome <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > > > > index d02ae323996b..e87d5df658cb 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > > > > @@ -2939,6 +2939,41 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_bits_destroy(struct bpf_iter_bits *it)
> > > > > bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->bits);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * bpf_copy_from_user_str() - Copy a string from an unsafe user address
> > > > > + * @dst: Destination address, in kernel space. This buffer must be at
> > > > > + * least @dst__szk bytes long.
> > > > > + * @dst__szk: Maximum number of bytes to copy, including the trailing NUL.
> > > > > + * @unsafe_ptr__ign: Source address, in user space.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Copies a NUL-terminated string from userspace to BPF space. If user string is
> > > > > + * too long this will still ensure zero termination in the dst buffer unless
> > > > > + * buffer size is 0.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_copy_from_user_str(void *dst, u32 dst__szk, const void __user *unsafe_ptr__ign)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > + int count;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (unlikely(!dst__szk))
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + count = dst__szk - 1;
> > > > > + if (unlikely(!count)) {
> > > > > + ((char *)dst)[0] = '\0';
> > > > > + return 1;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ret = strncpy_from_user(dst, unsafe_ptr__ign, count);
> > > > > + if (ret >= 0) {
> > > > > + if (ret == count)
> > > > > + ((char *)dst)[ret] = '\0';
> > > > > + ret++;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > The above will not pad the buffer and it will create instability
> > > > when the target buffer is a part of the map key. Consider:
> > > >
> > > > struct map_key {
> > > > char str[100];
> > > > };
> > > > struct {
> > > > __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
> > > > __type(key, struct map_key);
> > > > } hash SEC(".maps");
> > > >
> > > > struct map_key key;
> > > > bpf_copy_from_user_str(key.str, sizeof(key.str), user_string);
> > > >
> > > > The verifier will think that all of the 'key' is initialized,
> > > > but for short strings the key will have garbage.
> > > >
> > > > bpf_probe_read_kernel_str() has the same issue as above, but
> > > > let's fix it here first and update read_kernel_str() later.
> > > >
> > > > pw-bot: cr
> > >
> > > You're saying we should always do a memset using `dst__szk` on success
> > > of copying the string?
> >
> > Something like this?
> > ```
> > ret = strncpy_from_user(dst, unsafe_ptr__ign, count);
> > if (ret >= 0) {
> > if (ret <= count)
> > memset((char *)dst + ret, 0, dst__szk - ret);
> > ret++;
> > }
> > ```
>
> yep. something like this. I didn't check the math.
I'm a bit worried about this unconditional memset without having a way
to disable it. In practice, lots of cases won't use the destination
buffer as a map key, but rather just send it over ringbuf. So paying
the price of zeroing out seems unnecessary.
It's quite often (I do that in retsnoop, for instance; and we have
other cases in our production) that we have a pretty big buffer, but
expect that most of the time strings will be much smaller. So we can
have a 1K buffer, but get 20 bytes of string content (and we end up
sending only actual useful size of data over ringbuf/perfbuf, so not
even paying 1K memcpy() overhead). Paying for memset()'ing the entire
1K (and string reading can happen in a loop, so this memsetting will
be happening over and over, unnecessarily), seems excessive.
Given it's pretty easy to do memset(0) using bpf_prober_read(dst, sz,
NULL), maybe we shouldn't do memsetting unconditionally? We can add a
loud comment stating the danger of using the resulting buffer as map
key without clearing the unfilled part of the buffer and that should
be sufficient?
