Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add kfuncs for read-only string operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:34 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:04 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:48 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:26 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2024-09-30 at 15:00 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > Right now, the only way to pass dynamically sized anything is through
> > > > > dynptr, AFAIU.
> > > >
> > > > But we do have 'is_kfunc_arg_mem_size()' that checks for __sz suffix,
> > > > e.g. used for bpf_copy_from_user_str():
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > >  * 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__sz bytes long.
> > > >  * @dst__sz:         Maximum number of bytes to copy, includes the trailing NUL.
> > > >  * ...
> > > >  */
> > > > __bpf_kfunc int bpf_copy_from_user_str(void *dst, u32 dst__sz, const void __user *unsafe_ptr__ign, u64 flags)
> > > >
> > > > However, this suffix won't work for strnstr because of the arguments order.
> > >
> > > Stating the obvious... we don't need to keep the order exactly the same.
> > >
> > > Regarding all of these kfuncs... as Andrii pointed out 'const char *s'
> > > means that the verifier will check that 's' points to a valid byte.
> > > I think we can do a hybrid static + dynamic safety scheme here.
> > > All of the kfunc signatures can stay the same, but we'd have to
> > > open code all string helpers with __get_kernel_nofault() instead of
> > > direct memory access.
> > > Since the first byte is guaranteed to be valid by the verifier
> > > we only need to make sure that the s+N bytes won't cause page faults
> >
> > You mean to just check that s[N-1] can be read? Given a large enough
> > N, couldn't it be that some page between s[0] and s[N-1] still can be
> > unmapped, defeating this check?
>
> Just checking s[0] and s[N-1] is not enough, obviously, and especially,
> since the logic won't know where nul byte is, so N is unknown.
> I meant to that all of str* kfuncs will be reading all bytes
> via __get_kernel_nofault() until they find \0.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean now.

> It can be optimized to 8 byte access.
> The open coding (aka copy-paste) is unfortunate, of course.

Yep, this sucks.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux