On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:43:28PM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 02:43:12AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > > > > Right now only PTR_TO_BTF_ID and PTR_TO_SOCK and scalars are supported, as you > > noted, for kfunc arguments. > > > > So in 3/6 I move the PTR_TO_CTX block before btf_is_kernel check, that means if > > reg type is PTR_TO_CTX and it matches the argument for the program, it will use > > that, otherwise it moves to btf_is_kernel(btf) block, which checks if reg->type > > is PTR_TO_BTF_ID or one of PTR_TO_SOCK* and does struct match for those. Next, I > > punt to ptr_to_mem for the rest of the cases, which I think is problematic, > > since now you may pass PTR_TO_MEM where some kfunc wants a PTR_TO_BTF_ID. > > > > But without bpf_func_proto, I am not sure we can decide what is expected in the > > kfunc. For something like bpf_sock_tuple, we'd want a PTR_TO_MEM, but taking in > > a PTR_TO_BTF_ID also isn't problematic since it is just data, but for a struct > > embedding pointers or other cases, it may be a problem. > > > > For PTR_TO_CTX in kfunc case, based on my reading and testing, it will reject > > any attempts to pass anything other than PTR_TO_CTX due to btf_get_prog_ctx_type > > for that argument. So that works fine. > > > > To me it seems like extending with some limited argument checking is necessary, > > either using tagging as you mentioned or bpf_func_proto, or some other hardcoded > > checking for now since the number of helpers needing this support is low. > > Got it. The patch 3 commit log was too terse for me to comprehend. > Even with detailed explanation above it took me awhile to understand the > consequences of the patch... and 'goto ptr_to_mem' I misunderstood completely. > I think now we're on the same page :) > > Agree that allowing PTR_TO_CTX into kfunc is safe to do in all cases. > Converting PTR_TO_MEM to PTR_TO_BTF_ID is also safe when kernel side 'struct foo' > contains only scalars. The patches don't have this check yet (as far as I can see). > That's the only missing piece. This is a great idea! I think this does address the thing I was worried about. > With that in place 'struct bpf_sock_tuple' can be defined on the kernel side. > The bpf prog can do include "vmlinux.h" to use it to pass as PTR_TO_MEM > into kfunc. The patch 5 kernel function bpf_skb_ct_lookup can stay as-is. > So no tagging or extensions to bpf_func_proto are necessary. > > The piece I'm still missing is why you need two additional *btf_struct_access. > Why do you want to restrict read access? > The bpf-tcp infra has bpf_tcp_ca_btf_struct_access() to allow-list > few safe fields for writing. > Is there a use case to write into 'struct nf_conn' from bpf prog? Probably not yet. > Then let's keep the default btf_struct_access() behavior for now. > The patch 5 will be defining bpf_xdp_ct_lookup_tcp/bpf_skb_ct_lookup_tcp > and no callbacks at all. > acquire/release are probably cleaner as explicit btf_id_list-s. > Similar to btf_id_list for PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL vs PTR_TO_BTF_ID return type. I agree with everything. I'll rework the BPF stuff like this. Thanks! -- Kartikeya
