On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 06:48:43PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 06:00 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:28:19PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >>I think due to the given insns restrictions on classic seccomp, this
> >>could work for "most cases" (see below) for the time being until pointer
> >>sanitation is resolved and that seccomp-only restriction from the dump
> >>could be removed,
> >
> >Ok, thanks.
> >
> >>BUT there's one more stone in the road which you still
> >>need to take care of with this whole 'giving classic seccomp-BPF -> eBPF
> >>transforms an fd, dumping and restoring that via bpf(2)' approach:
> >>
> >>If you have JIT enabled on ARM32, and add a classic seccomp-BPF filter,
> >>and dump that via your bpf(2) interface based on the current patches, what
> >>you'll get is not eBPF opcodes but classic (!) BPF opcodes as ARM32 classic
> >>JIT supports compilation of seccomp, since commit 24e737c1ebac ("ARM: net:
> >>add JIT support for loads from struct seccomp_data.").
> >>
> >>So in that case, bpf_prepare_filter() will not call into bpf_migrate_filter()
> >>as there's simply no need for it, because the classic code could already
> >>be JITed there. I guess other archs where JIT support for eBPF in not yet
> >>within near sight might sooner or later support this insn for their classic
> >>JITs, too ...
> >
> >Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> >What if we legislate that the output of bpf(BPF_PROG_DUMP, ...) is
> >always eBPF? As near as I can tell there is no way to determine if a
> >struct bpf_prog is classic or eBPF, so we'd need to add a bit to
> >indicate whether or not the prog has been converted so that
> >BPF_PROG_DUMP knows when to convert it.
>
> As I said, you have bpf_prog_was_classic() function to determine exactly
> this (so without your type re-assignment you have a way to distinguish it).
I don't think this is the same thing, though. IIUC, when the classic
jit succeeds, bpf_prog_was_classic() will still return true even
though prog->insnsi points to classic instructions instead of eBPF
ones, and (I think) this situation is impossible to distinguish.
Anyway, it sounds like this doesn't matter, as we have...
> Wouldn't it be much easier to rip this set apart into multiple ones, solving
> one individual thing at a time, f.e. starting out simple and 1) only add
> native eBPF support to seccomp, after that 2) add a method to dump native-only
> eBPF programs for criu, then 3) think about a right interface for classic
> BPF seccomp dumping, etc, etc? Currently, it tries to solve everything at
> once, and with some early assumptions that have non-trivial side-effects.
The primary motivation for this set is your bullet 3, c/r of programs
with classic bpf programs (i.e. what seccomp supports now). Initially,
I thought it was best to try and dump the eBPFs directly, but it seems
there are a lot of complications I wasn't aware of. Perhaps I'll look
at a bpf_prog_store_orig_filter() style approach.
Thanks,
Tycho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
