On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 03:55:23PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index ea3674a415f9..70cf1dad91df 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -768,6 +768,10 @@ void notrace __bpf_prog_exit(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 start, struct bpf_tramp_
> u64 notrace __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx *run_ctx);
> void notrace __bpf_prog_exit_sleepable(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 start,
> struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx *run_ctx);
> +u64 notrace __bpf_prog_enter_lsm_cgroup(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx *run_ctx);
> +void notrace __bpf_prog_exit_lsm_cgroup(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 start,
> + struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx *run_ctx);
> void notrace __bpf_tramp_enter(struct bpf_tramp_image *tr);
> void notrace __bpf_tramp_exit(struct bpf_tramp_image *tr);
>
> @@ -1035,6 +1039,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
> u64 load_time; /* ns since boottime */
> u32 verified_insns;
> struct bpf_map *cgroup_storage[MAX_BPF_CGROUP_STORAGE_TYPE];
> + int cgroup_atype; /* enum cgroup_bpf_attach_type */
> char name[BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN];
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> void *security;
> @@ -1107,6 +1112,12 @@ struct bpf_tramp_link {
> u64 cookie;
> };
>
> +struct bpf_shim_tramp_link {
> + struct bpf_tramp_link tramp_link;
> + struct bpf_trampoline *tr;
> + atomic64_t refcnt;
There is already a refcnt in 'struct bpf_link'.
Reuse that one if possible.
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> index 01ce78c1df80..c424056f0b35 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> #include <linux/rcupdate_wait.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/static_call.h>
> +#include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
> +#include <linux/bpf_lsm.h>
>
> /* dummy _ops. The verifier will operate on target program's ops. */
> const struct bpf_verifier_ops bpf_extension_verifier_ops = {
> @@ -497,6 +499,163 @@ int bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_trampolin
> return err;
> }
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> +static struct bpf_shim_tramp_link *cgroup_shim_alloc(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + bpf_func_t bpf_func)
> +{
> + struct bpf_shim_tramp_link *shim_link = NULL;
> + struct bpf_prog *p;
> +
> + shim_link = kzalloc(sizeof(*shim_link), GFP_USER);
> + if (!shim_link)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + p = bpf_prog_alloc(1, 0);
> + if (!p) {
> + kfree(shim_link);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + p->jited = false;
> + p->bpf_func = bpf_func;
> +
> + p->aux->cgroup_atype = prog->aux->cgroup_atype;
> + p->aux->attach_func_proto = prog->aux->attach_func_proto;
> + p->aux->attach_btf_id = prog->aux->attach_btf_id;
> + p->aux->attach_btf = prog->aux->attach_btf;
> + btf_get(p->aux->attach_btf);
> + p->type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM;
> + p->expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_MAC;
> + bpf_prog_inc(p);
> + bpf_link_init(&shim_link->tramp_link.link, BPF_LINK_TYPE_TRACING, NULL, p);
> + atomic64_set(&shim_link->refcnt, 1);
> +
> + return shim_link;
> +}
> +
> +static struct bpf_shim_tramp_link *cgroup_shim_find(struct bpf_trampoline *tr,
> + bpf_func_t bpf_func)
> +{
> + struct bpf_tramp_link *link;
> + int kind;
> +
> + for (kind = 0; kind < BPF_TRAMP_MAX; kind++) {
> + hlist_for_each_entry(link, &tr->progs_hlist[kind], tramp_hlist) {
> + struct bpf_prog *p = link->link.prog;
> +
> + if (p->bpf_func == bpf_func)
> + return container_of(link, struct bpf_shim_tramp_link, tramp_link);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void cgroup_shim_put(struct bpf_shim_tramp_link *shim_link)
> +{
> + if (shim_link->tr)
I have been spinning back and forth with this "shim_link->tr" test and
the "!shim_link->tr" test below with an atomic64_dec_and_test() test
in between :)
> + bpf_trampoline_put(shim_link->tr);
Why put(tr) here?
Intuitive thinking is that should be done after __bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(.., tr)
which is still using the tr.
or I missed something inside __bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(..., tr) ?
> +
> + if (!atomic64_dec_and_test(&shim_link->refcnt))
> + return;
> +
> + if (!shim_link->tr)
And this is only for the error case in bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim()?
Can it be handled locally in bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim()
where it could actually happen ?
> + return;
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(__bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(&shim_link->tramp_link, shim_link->tr));
> + kfree(shim_link);
How about shim_link->tramp_link.link.prog, is the prog freed ?
Considering the bpf_link_put() does bpf_prog_put(link->prog).
Is there a reason the bpf_link_put() not used and needs to
manage its own shim_link->refcnt here ?
> +}
> +
> +int bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> + struct bpf_attach_target_info *tgt_info)
> +{
> + struct bpf_shim_tramp_link *shim_link = NULL;
> + struct bpf_trampoline *tr;
> + bpf_func_t bpf_func;
> + u64 key;
> + int err;
> +
> + key = bpf_trampoline_compute_key(NULL, prog->aux->attach_btf,
> + prog->aux->attach_btf_id);
> +
> + err = bpf_lsm_find_cgroup_shim(prog, &bpf_func);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + tr = bpf_trampoline_get(key, tgt_info);
> + if (!tr)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&tr->mutex);
> +
> + shim_link = cgroup_shim_find(tr, bpf_func);
> + if (shim_link) {
> + /* Reusing existing shim attached by the other program. */
> + atomic64_inc(&shim_link->refcnt);
> + /* note, we're still holding tr refcnt from above */
hmm... why it still needs to hold the tr refcnt ?
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /* Allocate and install new shim. */
> +
> + shim_link = cgroup_shim_alloc(prog, bpf_func);
> + if (!shim_link) {
> + bpf_trampoline_put(tr);
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + err = __bpf_trampoline_link_prog(&shim_link->tramp_link, tr);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> +
> + shim_link->tr = tr;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&tr->mutex);
> +
> + if (shim_link)
> + cgroup_shim_put(shim_link);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
