On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:15:42AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:55 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This commit introduces a new pointer type 'kptr' which can be embedded
> > in a map value as holds a PTR_TO_BTF_ID stored by a BPF program during
> > its invocation. Storing to such a kptr, BPF program's PTR_TO_BTF_ID
> > register must have the same type as in the map value's BTF, and loading
> > a kptr marks the destination register as PTR_TO_BTF_ID with the correct
> > kernel BTF and BTF ID.
> >
> > Such kptr are unreferenced, i.e. by the time another invocation of the
> > BPF program loads this pointer, the object which the pointer points to
> > may not longer exist. Since PTR_TO_BTF_ID loads (using BPF_LDX) are
> > patched to PROBE_MEM loads by the verifier, it would safe to allow user
> > to still access such invalid pointer, but passing such pointers into
> > BPF helpers and kfuncs should not be permitted. A future patch in this
> > series will close this gap.
> >
> > The flexibility offered by allowing programs to dereference such invalid
> > pointers while being safe at runtime frees the verifier from doing
> > complex lifetime tracking. As long as the user may ensure that the
> > object remains valid, it can ensure data read by it from the kernel
> > object is valid.
> >
> > The user indicates that a certain pointer must be treated as kptr
> > capable of accepting stores of PTR_TO_BTF_ID of a certain type, by using
> > a BTF type tag 'kptr' on the pointed to type of the pointer. Then, this
> > information is recorded in the object BTF which will be passed into the
> > kernel by way of map's BTF information. The name and kind from the map
> > value BTF is used to look up the in-kernel type, and the actual BTF and
> > BTF ID is recorded in the map struct in a new kptr_off_tab member. For
> > now, only storing pointers to structs is permitted.
> >
> > An example of this specification is shown below:
> >
> > #define __kptr __attribute__((btf_type_tag("kptr")))
> >
> > struct map_value {
> > ...
> > struct task_struct __kptr *task;
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > Then, in a BPF program, user may store PTR_TO_BTF_ID with the type
> > task_struct into the map, and then load it later.
> >
> > Note that the destination register is marked PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL, as
> > the verifier cannot know whether the value is NULL or not statically, it
> > must treat all potential loads at that map value offset as loading a
> > possibly NULL pointer.
> >
> > Only BPF_LDX, BPF_STX, and BPF_ST with insn->imm = 0 (to denote NULL)
> > are allowed instructions that can access such a pointer. On BPF_LDX, the
> > destination register is updated to be a PTR_TO_BTF_ID, and on BPF_STX,
> > it is checked whether the source register type is a PTR_TO_BTF_ID with
> > same BTF type as specified in the map BTF. The access size must always
> > be BPF_DW.
> >
> > For the map in map support, the kptr_off_tab for outer map is copied
> > from the inner map's kptr_off_tab. It was chosen to do a deep copy
> > instead of introducing a refcount to kptr_off_tab, because the copy only
> > needs to be done when paramterizing using inner_map_fd in the map in map
> > case, hence would be unnecessary for all other users.
> >
> > It is not permitted to use MAP_FREEZE command and mmap for BPF map
> > having kptr, similar to the bpf_timer case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 29 +++++++-
> > include/linux/btf.h | 2 +
> > kernel/bpf/btf.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c | 5 +-
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 6 files changed, 401 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > +static int btf_find_field_kptr(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > + u32 off, int sz, struct btf_field_info *info)
> > +{
> > + /* For PTR, sz is always == 8 */
> > + if (!btf_type_is_ptr(t))
> > + return BTF_FIELD_IGNORE;
> > + t = btf_type_by_id(btf, t->type);
> > +
> > + if (!btf_type_is_type_tag(t))
> > + return BTF_FIELD_IGNORE;
> > + /* Reject extra tags */
> > + if (btf_type_is_type_tag(btf_type_by_id(btf, t->type)))
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Can we have tag -> const -> tag -> volatile -> tag in BTF? Wouldn't
> you assume there are no more tags with just this check?
>
All tags are supposed to be before other modifiers, so tags come first, in
continuity. See [0].
Alexei suggested to reject all other tags for now.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220127154627.665163-1-yhs@xxxxxx
>
> > + if (strcmp("kptr", __btf_name_by_offset(btf, t->name_off)))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* Get the base type */
> > + if (btf_type_is_modifier(t))
> > + t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, t->type, NULL);
> > + /* Only pointer to struct is allowed */
> > + if (!__btf_type_is_struct(t))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + info->type = t;
> > + info->off = off;
> > + return BTF_FIELD_FOUND;
> > }
> >
> > static int btf_find_struct_field(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > const char *name, int sz, int align, int field_type,
> > - struct btf_field_info *info)
> > + struct btf_field_info *info, int info_cnt)
> > {
> > const struct btf_member *member;
> > + int ret, idx = 0;
> > u32 i, off;
> > - int ret;
> >
> > for_each_member(i, t, member) {
> > const struct btf_type *member_type = btf_type_by_id(btf,
> > @@ -3210,24 +3242,35 @@ static int btf_find_struct_field(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t
> > switch (field_type) {
> > case BTF_FIELD_SPIN_LOCK:
> > case BTF_FIELD_TIMER:
> > - ret = btf_find_field_struct(btf, member_type, off, sz, info);
> > + ret = btf_find_field_struct(btf, member_type, off, sz, &info[idx]);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + break;
> > + case BTF_FIELD_KPTR:
> > + ret = btf_find_field_kptr(btf, member_type, off, sz, &info[idx]);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > break;
> > default:
> > return -EFAULT;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (ret == BTF_FIELD_FOUND && idx >= info_cnt)
>
> hm.. haven't you already written info[info_cnt] above by now? I see
> that above you do (info_cnt - 1), but why such tricks if you can have
> a temporary struct btf_field_info on the stack, write into it, and if
> BTF_FIELD_FOUND and idx < info_cnt then write it into info[idx]?
>
>
> > + return -E2BIG;
> > + else if (ret == BTF_FIELD_IGNORE)
> > + continue;
> > + ++idx;
> > }
> > - return 0;
> > + return idx;
> > }
> >
> > static int btf_find_datasec_var(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > const char *name, int sz, int align, int field_type,
> > - struct btf_field_info *info)
> > + struct btf_field_info *info, int info_cnt)
> > {
> > const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
> > + int ret, idx = 0;
> > u32 i, off;
> > - int ret;
> >
> > for_each_vsi(i, t, vsi) {
> > const struct btf_type *var = btf_type_by_id(btf, vsi->type);
> > @@ -3245,19 +3288,30 @@ static int btf_find_datasec_var(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > switch (field_type) {
> > case BTF_FIELD_SPIN_LOCK:
> > case BTF_FIELD_TIMER:
> > - ret = btf_find_field_struct(btf, var_type, off, sz, info);
> > + ret = btf_find_field_struct(btf, var_type, off, sz, &info[idx]);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + break;
> > + case BTF_FIELD_KPTR:
> > + ret = btf_find_field_kptr(btf, var_type, off, sz, &info[idx]);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > break;
> > default:
> > return -EFAULT;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (ret == BTF_FIELD_FOUND && idx >= info_cnt)
>
> same, already writing past the end of array?
>
> > + return -E2BIG;
> > + if (ret == BTF_FIELD_IGNORE)
> > + continue;
> > + ++idx;
> > }
> > - return 0;
> > + return idx;
> > }
> >
> > static int btf_find_field(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > - int field_type, struct btf_field_info *info)
> > + int field_type, struct btf_field_info *info, int info_cnt)
> > {
> > const char *name;
> > int sz, align;
> > @@ -3273,14 +3327,20 @@ static int btf_find_field(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > sz = sizeof(struct bpf_timer);
> > align = __alignof__(struct bpf_timer);
> > break;
> > + case BTF_FIELD_KPTR:
> > + name = NULL;
> > + sz = sizeof(u64);
> > + align = __alignof__(u64);
>
> can be 4 on 32-bit arch, is that ok?
>
Good catch, it must be 8, so will hardcode.
> > + break;
> > default:
> > return -EFAULT;
> > }
> >
> > + /* The maximum allowed fields of a certain type will be info_cnt - 1 */
> > if (__btf_type_is_struct(t))
> > - return btf_find_struct_field(btf, t, name, sz, align, field_type, info);
> > + return btf_find_struct_field(btf, t, name, sz, align, field_type, info, info_cnt - 1);
>
> why -1, to avoid overwriting past the end of array?
>
Yes, see my reply to Joanne, let's continue discussing it there.
> > else if (btf_type_is_datasec(t))
> > - return btf_find_datasec_var(btf, t, name, sz, align, field_type, info);
> > + return btf_find_datasec_var(btf, t, name, sz, align, field_type, info, info_cnt - 1);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3290,24 +3350,79 @@ static int btf_find_field(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t,
> > */
> > int btf_find_spin_lock(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t)
> > {
> > - struct btf_field_info info = { .off = -ENOENT };
> > + /* btf_find_field requires array of size max + 1 */
>
> ok, right, as I expected above, but see also suggestion to not have
> these weird implicit expectations
>
> > + struct btf_field_info info_arr[2];
> > int ret;
> >
> > - ret = btf_find_field(btf, t, BTF_FIELD_SPIN_LOCK, &info);
> > + ret = btf_find_field(btf, t, BTF_FIELD_SPIN_LOCK, info_arr, ARRAY_SIZE(info_arr));
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > - return info.off;
> > + if (!ret)
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > + return info_arr[0].off;
> > }
> >
> > int btf_find_timer(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t)
> > {
> > - struct btf_field_info info = { .off = -ENOENT };
> > + /* btf_find_field requires array of size max + 1 */
> > + struct btf_field_info info_arr[2];
> > int ret;
> >
> > - ret = btf_find_field(btf, t, BTF_FIELD_TIMER, &info);
> > + ret = btf_find_field(btf, t, BTF_FIELD_TIMER, info_arr, ARRAY_SIZE(info_arr));
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > - return info.off;
> > + if (!ret)
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > + return info_arr[0].off;
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct bpf_map_value_off *btf_find_kptr(const struct btf *btf,
> > + const struct btf_type *t)
> > +{
> > + /* btf_find_field requires array of size max + 1 */
> > + struct btf_field_info info_arr[BPF_MAP_VALUE_OFF_MAX + 1];
> > + struct bpf_map_value_off *tab;
> > + int ret, i, nr_off;
> > +
> > + /* Revisit stack usage when bumping BPF_MAP_VALUE_OFF_MAX */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_MAP_VALUE_OFF_MAX != 8);
>
> you can store u32 type_id instead of full btf_type pointer, type
> looking below in the loop is cheap and won't fail
>
Ok, will switch to type_id.
>
> > +
> > + ret = btf_find_field(btf, t, BTF_FIELD_KPTR, info_arr, ARRAY_SIZE(info_arr));
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
>
> [...]
>
> > +
> > +bool bpf_map_equal_kptr_off_tab(const struct bpf_map *map_a, const struct bpf_map *map_b)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_map_value_off *tab_a = map_a->kptr_off_tab, *tab_b = map_b->kptr_off_tab;
> > + bool a_has_kptr = map_value_has_kptr(map_a), b_has_kptr = map_value_has_kptr(map_b);
> > + int size;
> > +
> > + if (!a_has_kptr && !b_has_kptr)
> > + return true;
> > + if ((a_has_kptr && !b_has_kptr) || (!a_has_kptr && b_has_kptr))
> > + return false;
>
> if (a_has_kptr != b_has_kptr)
> return false;
>
Ack.
> > + if (tab_a->nr_off != tab_b->nr_off)
> > + return false;
> > + size = offsetof(struct bpf_map_value_off, off[tab_a->nr_off]);
> > + return !memcmp(tab_a, tab_b, size);
> > +}
> > +
> > /* called from workqueue */
> > static void bpf_map_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
> > {
> > struct bpf_map *map = container_of(work, struct bpf_map, work);
> >
> > security_bpf_map_free(map);
> > + bpf_map_free_kptr_off_tab(map);
> > bpf_map_release_memcg(map);
> > /* implementation dependent freeing */
> > map->ops->map_free(map);
> > @@ -640,7 +724,7 @@ static int bpf_map_mmap(struct file *filp, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > int err;
> >
> > if (!map->ops->map_mmap || map_value_has_spin_lock(map) ||
> > - map_value_has_timer(map))
> > + map_value_has_timer(map) || map_value_has_kptr(map))
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> >
> > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
> > @@ -820,9 +904,31 @@ static int map_check_btf(struct bpf_map *map, const struct btf *btf,
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > }
> >
> > - if (map->ops->map_check_btf)
> > + map->kptr_off_tab = btf_find_kptr(btf, value_type);
>
> btf_find_kptr() is so confusingly named. It certainly can find more
> than one kptr, so at least it should be btf_find_kptrs(). Combining
> with Joanne's suggestion, btf_parse_kptrs() would indeed be better.
>
Ok.
> > + if (map_value_has_kptr(map)) {
> > + if (!bpf_capable())
> > + return -EPERM;
> > + if (map->map_flags & BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG) {
> > + ret = -EACCES;
> > + goto free_map_tab;
> > + }
> > + if (map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH &&
> > + map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH &&
> > + map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY) {
>
> what about PERCPU_ARRAY, for instance? Is there something
> fundamentally wrong to support it for local storage maps?
>
Plugging in support into maps that already take timers was easier to begin, I
can do percpu support as a follow up.
In case of local storage, I'm a little worried about how we prevent creating
reference cycles. There was a thread where find_get_task_by_pid was proposed as
unstable helper, once we e.g. support embedding task_struct in map, and allow
storing such pointer in task local storage, it would be pretty easy to construct
a circular reference cycle.
Should we think about this now, or should we worry about this when task_struct
is actually supported as kptr? It's not only task_struct, same applies to sock.
There's a discussion to be had, hence I left it out for now.
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto free_map_tab;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (map->ops->map_check_btf) {
> > ret = map->ops->map_check_btf(map, btf, key_type, value_type);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto free_map_tab;
> > + }
> >
> > + return ret;
> > +free_map_tab:
> > + bpf_map_free_kptr_off_tab(map);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1639,7 +1745,7 @@ static int map_freeze(const union bpf_attr *attr)
> > return PTR_ERR(map);
> >
> > if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS ||
> > - map_value_has_timer(map)) {
> > + map_value_has_timer(map) || map_value_has_kptr(map)) {
> > fdput(f);
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 4ce9a528fb63..744b7362e52e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -3507,6 +3507,94 @@ int check_ptr_off_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > return __check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, false);
> > }
> >
> > +static int map_kptr_match_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > + struct bpf_map_value_off_desc *off_desc,
> > + struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u32 regno)
> > +{
> > + const char *targ_name = kernel_type_name(off_desc->btf, off_desc->btf_id);
> > + const char *reg_name = "";
> > +
> > + if (reg->type != PTR_TO_BTF_ID && reg->type != PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL)
>
> base_type(reg->type) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID ?
>
> > + goto bad_type;
> > +
> > + if (!btf_is_kernel(reg->btf)) {
> > + verbose(env, "R%d must point to kernel BTF\n", regno);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + /* We need to verify reg->type and reg->btf, before accessing reg->btf */
> > + reg_name = kernel_type_name(reg->btf, reg->btf_id);
> > +
> > + if (__check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, true))
> > + return -EACCES;
> > +
> > + if (!btf_struct_ids_match(&env->log, reg->btf, reg->btf_id, reg->off,
> > + off_desc->btf, off_desc->btf_id))
> > + goto bad_type;
> > + return 0;
> > +bad_type:
> > + verbose(env, "invalid kptr access, R%d type=%s%s ", regno,
> > + reg_type_str(env, reg->type), reg_name);
> > + verbose(env, "expected=%s%s\n", reg_type_str(env, PTR_TO_BTF_ID), targ_name);
>
> why two separate verbose calls, you can easily combine them (and they
> should be output on a single line given it's a single error)
>
reg_type_str cannot be called more than once in the same statement, since it
reuses the same buffer.
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
>
> [...]
--
Kartikeya
