On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:33 PM Daniel T. Lee <danieltimlee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 8:50 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:28 AM Daniel T. Lee <danieltimlee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:04 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/2/20 4:13 AM, Daniel T. Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:13 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 7/1/20 7:16 PM, Daniel T. Lee wrote:
> > > > >>> Currently, BPF programs with kprobe/sys_connect does not work properly.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Commit 34745aed515c ("samples/bpf: fix kprobe attachment issue on x64")
> > > > >>> This commit modifies the bpf_load behavior of kprobe events in the x64
> > > > >>> architecture. If the current kprobe event target starts with "sys_*",
> > > > >>> add the prefix "__x64_" to the front of the event.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Appending "__x64_" prefix with kprobe/sys_* event was appropriate as a
> > > > >>> solution to most of the problems caused by the commit below.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> commit d5a00528b58c ("syscalls/core, syscalls/x86: Rename struct
> > > > >>> pt_regs-based sys_*() to __x64_sys_*()")
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> However, there is a problem with the sys_connect kprobe event that does
> > > > >>> not work properly. For __sys_connect event, parameters can be fetched
> > > > >>> normally, but for __x64_sys_connect, parameters cannot be fetched.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Because of this problem, this commit fixes the sys_connect event by
> > > > >>> specifying the __sys_connect directly and this will bypass the
> > > > >>> "__x64_" appending rule of bpf_load.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the kernel code, we have
> > > > >>
> > > > >> SYSCALL_DEFINE3(connect, int, fd, struct sockaddr __user *, uservaddr,
> > > > >> int, addrlen)
> > > > >> {
> > > > >> return __sys_connect(fd, uservaddr, addrlen);
> > > > >> }
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Depending on compiler, there is no guarantee that __sys_connect will
> > > > >> not be inlined. I would prefer to still use the entry point
> > > > >> __x64_sys_* e.g.,
> > > > >> SEC("kprobe/" SYSCALL(sys_write))
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > As you mentioned, there is clearly a possibility that problems may arise
> > > > > because the symbol does not exist according to the compiler.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, in x64, when using Kprobe for __x64_sys_connect event, the
> > > > > tests are not working properly because the parameters cannot be fetched,
> > > > > and the test under selftests/bpf is using "kprobe/_sys_connect" directly.
> > > >
> > > > This is the assembly code for __x64_sys_connect.
> > > >
> > > > ffffffff818d3520 <__x64_sys_connect>:
> > > > ffffffff818d3520: e8 fb df 32 00 callq 0xffffffff81c01520
> > > > <__fentry__>
> > > > ffffffff818d3525: 48 8b 57 60 movq 96(%rdi), %rdx
> > > > ffffffff818d3529: 48 8b 77 68 movq 104(%rdi), %rsi
> > > > ffffffff818d352d: 48 8b 7f 70 movq 112(%rdi), %rdi
> > > > ffffffff818d3531: e8 1a ff ff ff callq 0xffffffff818d3450
> > > > <__sys_connect>
> > > > ffffffff818d3536: 48 98 cltq
> > > > ffffffff818d3538: c3 retq
> > > > ffffffff818d3539: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl (%rax)
> > > >
> > > > In bpf program, the step is:
> > > > struct pt_regs *real_regs = PT_REGS_PARM1(pt_regs);
> > > > param1 = PT_REGS_PARM1(real_regs);
> > > > param2 = PT_REGS_PARM2(real_regs);
> > > > param3 = PT_REGS_PARM3(real_regs);
> > > > The same for s390.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry that I seem to get it wrong,
> > > But is it available to access 'struct pt_regs *' recursively?
> > >
> > > It seems nested use of PT_REGS_PARM causes invalid memory access.
> > >
> > > $ sudo ./test_probe_write_user
> > > libbpf: load bpf program failed: Permission denied
> > > libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
> > > libbpf:
> > > Unrecognized arg#0 type PTR
> > > ; struct pt_regs *real_regs = PT_REGS_PARM1(ctx);
> > > 0: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +112)
> > > ; void *sockaddr_arg = (void *)PT_REGS_PARM2(real_regs);
> > > 1: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +104)
> > > R1 invalid mem access 'inv'
> > > processed 2 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0
> > > total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0
> > >
> > > libbpf: -- END LOG --
> > > libbpf: failed to load program 'kprobe/__x64_sys_connect'
> > > libbpf: failed to load object './test_probe_write_user_kern.o'
> > > ERROR: loading BPF object file failed
> > >
> > > I'm not fully aware of the BPF verifier's internal structure.
> > > Is there any workaround to solve this problem?
> >
> > You need to use bpf_probe_read_kernel() to get those arguments from
> > real_args. Or better just use PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE(x) and others, which
> > does that for you (+ CO-RE relocation).
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
> I've just tried the old hack '_(P)':
> (which is similar implementation with BPF_CORE_READ())
>
> #define _(P) ({typeof(P) val = 0; bpf_probe_read(&val,
> sizeof(val), &P); val;})
> [...]
> struct pt_regs *regs = (struct pt_regs *)PT_REGS_PARM1(ctx);
> void *sockaddr_arg = (void *)_(PT_REGS_PARM2(regs));
> int sockaddr_len = (int)_(PT_REGS_PARM3(regs));
>
> and it works properly.
>
> Just wondering, why is the pointer chasing of the original ctx
> considered as an unsafe pointer here?
>
> ; struct pt_regs *real_regs = (struct pt_regs *)PT_REGS_PARM1(ctx);
> 0: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +112)
> [...]
> ; void *sockaddr_arg = (void *)PT_REGS_PARM2(real_regs);
> 4: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +104)
>
> Is it considered as an unsafe pointer since it is unknown what exists
> in the pointer (r1 + 104), but the instruction is trying to access it?
>
Yes.
Because after the initial pointer read, the verifier assumes that you
are reading a random piece of memory.
>
> I am a little concerned about using PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE
> because it is not a CORE-related patch, but if using CORE is the
> direction BPF wants to take, I will use PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE()
> instead of _(P) hack using bpf_probe_read().
bpf_probe_read() works as well. But yeah, BPF CO-RE is the way modern
tracing applications are leaning, look at selftests and see how many
are using CO-RE already. It's pretty much the only way to write
portable tracing BPF applications, short of taking Clang/LLVM
**runtime** dependency, the way BCC makes you do.
>
> In addition, PT_REGS_PARM1_CORE() allows me to write code
> neatly without having to define additional macro _(P).
>
> Thank you for your time and effort for the review.
> Daniel
>
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time and effort for the review.
> > > Daniel.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > For other architectures, no above indirection is needed.
> > > >
> > > > I guess you can abstract the above into trace_common.h?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure how to deal with this problem. Any advice and suggestions
> > > > > will be greatly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your time and effort for the review.
> > > > > Daniel
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Fixes: 34745aed515c ("samples/bpf: fix kprobe attachment issue on x64")
> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel T. Lee <danieltimlee@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >>> ---
[...]
