On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 12:57 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 11:05 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > static int __bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link,
> > > > struct bpf_trampoline *tr)
> > > > {
> > > > enum bpf_tramp_prog_type kind;
> > > > struct bpf_tramp_link *link_exiting;
> > > > - int err = 0, num_lsm_progs = 0;
> > > > + int err = 0;
> > > > int cnt = 0, i;
> > > >
> > > > kind = bpf_attach_type_to_tramp(link->link.prog);
> > > > @@ -547,15 +566,14 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct
> > > > bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_tr
> > > > /* prog already linked */
> > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > >
> > > > - if (link_exiting->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > > - num_lsm_progs++;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (!num_lsm_progs && link->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > > - bpf_lsm_toggle_hook(tr->func.addr, true);
> > > > -
> > > > hlist_add_head(&link->tramp_hlist, &tr->progs_hlist[kind]);
> > > > tr->progs_cnt[kind]++;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (link->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > > + bpf_trampoline_toggle_lsm(tr, kind);
> > >
> > > how about keeping BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM progs type count of attached programs
> > > in bpf_trampoline and toggle lsm on first coming in and last going out?
> >
> > hm we actually allow other tracing program types to attach to bpf_lsm_*
> > functions, so I wonder we should toggle the lsm hook for each program
> > type (for bpf_lsm_* trampolines) because they'd expect the hook is called
>
> Tracing is about tracing, attaching a tracing program to bpf_lsm_ that
> changes the actual trace here is not something I would recommend.
> Infact, I have used tracing programs to figure out whether bpf_lsm_*
> is being called to debug stuff. Tracing users can always attach to
> security_* if they like.
>
I will rev up with this fix and send it out as I will be unavailable
for the next 2 weeks.
- KP
> - KP
>
> >
> > but I'm not sure it's a valid use case to have like normal fentry program
> > attached to bpf_lsm_XXX function
> >
> > jirka
> >
> > >
> > > also the trampoline attach is actually made in bpf_trampoline_update,
> > > so I wonder it'd make more sense to put it in there, but it's already
> > > complicated, so it actually might be easier in here
> > >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > err = bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
> > > > if (err) {
> > > > hlist_del_init(&link->tramp_hlist);
> > > > @@ -578,7 +596,6 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct
> > > > bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_
> > > > {
> > > > struct bpf_tramp_link *link_exiting;
> > > > enum bpf_tramp_prog_type kind;
> > > > - bool lsm_link_found = false;
> > > > int err, num_lsm_progs = 0;
> > > >
> > > > kind = bpf_attach_type_to_tramp(link->link.prog);
> > > > @@ -595,18 +612,14 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_unlink_prog(struct
> > > > bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_
> > > > tramp_hlist) {
> > > > if (link_exiting->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > > num_lsm_progs++;
> > > > -
> > > > - if (link_exiting->link.prog == link->link.prog)
> > > > - lsm_link_found = true;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > hlist_del_init(&link->tramp_hlist);
> > > > tr->progs_cnt[kind]--;
> > > >
> > > > - if (lsm_link_found && num_lsm_progs == 1)
> > > > - bpf_lsm_toggle_hook(tr->func.addr, false);
> > > > -
> > > > + if (link->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > > + bpf_trampoline_toggle_lsm(tr, kind);
> > > > return bpf_trampoline_update(tr, true /* lock_direct_mutex */);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - KP
> >
