On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:19 PM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > When changing the ebpf program put() routines to support being called
> > from within IRQ context the program ID was reset to zero prior to
> > generating the audit UNLOAD record, which obviously rendered the ID
> > field bogus (always zero). This patch resolves this by adding a new
> > field, bpf_prog_aux::id_audit, which is set when the ebpf program is
> > allocated an ID and never reset, ensuring a valid ID field,
> > regardless of the state of the original ID field, bpf_prox_aud::id.
>
> > I also modified the bpf_audit_prog() logic used to associate the
> > AUDIT_BPF record with other associated records, e.g. @ctx != NULL.
> > Instead of keying off the operation, it now keys off the execution
> > context, e.g. '!in_irg && !irqs_disabled()', which is much more
> > appropriate and should help better connect the UNLOAD operations with
> > the associated audit state (other audit records).
>
> [..]
>
> > As an note to future bug hunters, I did briefly consider removing the
> > ID reset in bpf_prog_free_id(), as it would seem that once the
> > program is removed from the idr pool it can no longer be found by its
> > ID value, but commit ad8ad79f4f60 ("bpf: offload: free program id
> > when device disappears") seems to imply that it is beneficial to
> > reset the ID value. Perhaps as a secondary indicator that the ebpf
> > program is unbound/orphaned.
>
> That seems like the way to go imho. Can we have some extra 'invalid_id'
> bitfield in the bpf_prog so we can set it in bpf_prog_free_id and
> check in bpf_prog_free_id (for this offloaded use-case)? Because
> having two ids and then keeping track about which one to use, depending
> on the context, seems more fragile?
I would definitely prefer to keep just a single ID value, and that was
the first approach I took when drafting this patch, but when looking
through the git log it looked like there was some desire to reset the
ID to zero on free. Not being an expert on the ebpf kernel code I
figured I would just write the patch up this way and make a comment
about not zero'ing out the ID in the commit description so we could
have a discussion about it.
I'm not seeing any other comments, so I'll go ahead with putting
together a v2 that sets an invalid flag/bit and I'll post that for
further discussion/review.
> > Fixes: d809e134be7a ("bpf: Prepare bpf_prog_put() to be called from irq
> > context.")
> > Reported-by: Burn Alting <burn.alting@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 8 +++++---
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
paul-moore.com
