On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:21:04PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:16 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, at 2:07 PM, Daniel Xu wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:41:41PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:36 AM Alexei Starovoitov > > [...] > > > > > >> > > >> Also, Daniel, can you please make sure that dynptr we return for each > > >> sample is read-only? We shouldn't let consumer BPF program ability to > > >> corrupt ringbuf record headers (accidentally or otherwise). > > > > > > Sure. > > > > So the sample is not read-only. But I think prog is prevented from messing > > with header regardless. > > > > __bpf_user_ringbuf_peek() returns sample past the header: > > > > *sample = (void *)((uintptr_t)rb->data + > > (uintptr_t)((cons_pos + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ) & rb->mask)); > > > > dynptr is initialized with the above ptr: > > > > bpf_dynptr_init(&dynptr, sample, BPF_DYNPTR_TYPE_LOCAL, 0, size); > > > > So I don't think there's a way for the prog to access the header thru the dynptr. > > > > By "header" I mean 8 bytes that precede each submitted ringbuf record. > That header is part of ringbuf data area. Given user space can set > consumer_pos to arbitrary value, kernel can return arbitrary part of > ringbuf data area, including that 8 byte header. If that data is > writable, it's easy to screw up that header and crash another BPF > program that reserves/submits a new record. User space can only read > data area for BPF ringbuf, and so we rely heavily on a tight control > of who can write what into those 8 bytes. Ah, ok. I think I understand. Given this and your other comments about rb->busy, what about enforcing bpf_user_ringbuf_drain() NAND mmap? I think the use cases here are different enough where this makes sense.
