Message ID | 20240730051625.14349-16-viro@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [01/39] memcg_write_event_control(): fix a user-triggerable oops | expand |
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 10:19 PM <viro@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > Irregularity here is fdput() not in the same scope as fdget(); > just fold ____bpf_prog_get() into its (only) caller and that's > it... > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > --- > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 32 +++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > Folding makes total sense, the logic lgtm (though I find CLASS(fd, f)(ufd) utterly non-intuitive naming-wise). Extra IS_ERR(prog) check should be dropped though, see below. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > index 3093bf2cc266..c5b252c0faa8 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > @@ -2407,18 +2407,6 @@ int bpf_prog_new_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog) > O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); > } > > -static struct bpf_prog *____bpf_prog_get(struct fd f) > -{ > - if (!fd_file(f)) > - return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); > - if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) { > - fdput(f); > - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > - } > - > - return fd_file(f)->private_data; > -} > - > void bpf_prog_add(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i) > { > atomic64_add(i, &prog->aux->refcnt); > @@ -2474,20 +2462,22 @@ bool bpf_prog_get_ok(struct bpf_prog *prog, > static struct bpf_prog *__bpf_prog_get(u32 ufd, enum bpf_prog_type *attach_type, > bool attach_drv) > { > - struct fd f = fdget(ufd); > + CLASS(fd, f)(ufd); > struct bpf_prog *prog; > > - prog = ____bpf_prog_get(f); > - if (IS_ERR(prog)) > + if (fd_empty(f)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); > + if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > + > + prog = fd_file(f)->private_data; > + if (IS_ERR(prog)) // can that actually happen? no, it can't, private_data will always be a valid pointer, otherwise that file would never be successfully created > return prog; > - if (!bpf_prog_get_ok(prog, attach_type, attach_drv)) { > - prog = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > - goto out; > - } > + > + if (!bpf_prog_get_ok(prog, attach_type, attach_drv)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > bpf_prog_inc(prog); > -out: > - fdput(f); > return prog; > } > > -- > 2.39.2 > >
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:16:02AM GMT, viro@kernel.org wrote: > From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > Irregularity here is fdput() not in the same scope as fdget(); > just fold ____bpf_prog_get() into its (only) caller and that's > it... > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > --- > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 32 +++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > index 3093bf2cc266..c5b252c0faa8 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > @@ -2407,18 +2407,6 @@ int bpf_prog_new_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog) > O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); > } > > -static struct bpf_prog *____bpf_prog_get(struct fd f) > -{ > - if (!fd_file(f)) > - return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); > - if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) { > - fdput(f); > - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > - } > - > - return fd_file(f)->private_data; > -} > - > void bpf_prog_add(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i) > { > atomic64_add(i, &prog->aux->refcnt); > @@ -2474,20 +2462,22 @@ bool bpf_prog_get_ok(struct bpf_prog *prog, > static struct bpf_prog *__bpf_prog_get(u32 ufd, enum bpf_prog_type *attach_type, > bool attach_drv) > { > - struct fd f = fdget(ufd); > + CLASS(fd, f)(ufd); > struct bpf_prog *prog; > > - prog = ____bpf_prog_get(f); > - if (IS_ERR(prog)) > + if (fd_empty(f)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); > + if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > + > + prog = fd_file(f)->private_data; > + if (IS_ERR(prog)) // can that actually happen? > return prog; With or without that removed: Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index 3093bf2cc266..c5b252c0faa8 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -2407,18 +2407,6 @@ int bpf_prog_new_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog) O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC); } -static struct bpf_prog *____bpf_prog_get(struct fd f) -{ - if (!fd_file(f)) - return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); - if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) { - fdput(f); - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); - } - - return fd_file(f)->private_data; -} - void bpf_prog_add(struct bpf_prog *prog, int i) { atomic64_add(i, &prog->aux->refcnt); @@ -2474,20 +2462,22 @@ bool bpf_prog_get_ok(struct bpf_prog *prog, static struct bpf_prog *__bpf_prog_get(u32 ufd, enum bpf_prog_type *attach_type, bool attach_drv) { - struct fd f = fdget(ufd); + CLASS(fd, f)(ufd); struct bpf_prog *prog; - prog = ____bpf_prog_get(f); - if (IS_ERR(prog)) + if (fd_empty(f)) + return ERR_PTR(-EBADF); + if (fd_file(f)->f_op != &bpf_prog_fops) + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + + prog = fd_file(f)->private_data; + if (IS_ERR(prog)) // can that actually happen? return prog; - if (!bpf_prog_get_ok(prog, attach_type, attach_drv)) { - prog = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); - goto out; - } + + if (!bpf_prog_get_ok(prog, attach_type, attach_drv)) + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); bpf_prog_inc(prog); -out: - fdput(f); return prog; }