diff mbox series

[bpf-next] bpf: Check cfi_stubs before registering a struct_ops type.

Message ID 20240215022401.1882010-1-thinker.li@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series [bpf-next] bpf: Check cfi_stubs before registering a struct_ops type. | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 1051 this patch: 1051
netdev/build_tools success No tools touched, skip
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 9 maintainers not CCed: jolsa@kernel.org daniel@iogearbox.net john.fastabend@gmail.com yonghong.song@linux.dev netdev@vger.kernel.org sdf@google.com eddyz87@gmail.com kpsingh@kernel.org haoluo@google.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 1066 this patch: 1066
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 1068 this patch: 1068
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 11 lines checked
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Kui-Feng Lee Feb. 15, 2024, 2:24 a.m. UTC
From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>

Recently, cfi_stubs were introduced. However, existing struct_ops types
that are not in the upstream may not be aware of this, resulting in kernel
crashes. By rejecting struct_ops types that do not provide cfi_stubs during
registration, these crashes can be avoided.

Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

Comments

Martin KaFai Lau Feb. 15, 2024, 6:23 p.m. UTC | #1
On 2/14/24 6:24 PM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
> 
> Recently, cfi_stubs were introduced. However, existing struct_ops types
> that are not in the upstream may not be aware of this, resulting in kernel
> crashes. By rejecting struct_ops types that do not provide cfi_stubs during
> registration, these crashes can be avoided.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index 0d7be97a2411..e35958142dce 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -302,6 +302,11 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_desc_init(struct bpf_struct_ops_desc *st_ops_desc,
>   	}
>   	sprintf(value_name, "%s%s", VALUE_PREFIX, st_ops->name);
>   
> +	if (!st_ops->cfi_stubs) {

How about *(void **)(st_ops->cfi_stubs + moff) ? Does it need a NULL check?

Please add a test.

> +		pr_warn("The struct_ops %s has no cfi_stubs\n", st_ops->name);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
>   	type_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, st_ops->name,
>   					BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
>   	if (type_id < 0) {
Kui-Feng Lee Feb. 15, 2024, 7:19 p.m. UTC | #2
On 2/15/24 10:23, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 2/14/24 6:24 PM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>>
>> Recently, cfi_stubs were introduced. However, existing struct_ops types
>> that are not in the upstream may not be aware of this, resulting in 
>> kernel
>> crashes. By rejecting struct_ops types that do not provide cfi_stubs 
>> during
>> registration, these crashes can be avoided.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>> index 0d7be97a2411..e35958142dce 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>> @@ -302,6 +302,11 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_desc_init(struct 
>> bpf_struct_ops_desc *st_ops_desc,
>>       }
>>       sprintf(value_name, "%s%s", VALUE_PREFIX, st_ops->name);
>> +    if (!st_ops->cfi_stubs) {
> 
> How about *(void **)(st_ops->cfi_stubs + moff) ? Does it need a NULL check?

This NULL check is necessary to prevent the crash but good to have.

> 
> Please add a test.

Got it!

> 
>> +        pr_warn("The struct_ops %s has no cfi_stubs\n", st_ops->name);
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +    }
>> +
>>       type_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, st_ops->name,
>>                       BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
>>       if (type_id < 0) {
>
Kui-Feng Lee Feb. 15, 2024, 7:20 p.m. UTC | #3
On 2/15/24 11:19, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/15/24 10:23, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 6:24 PM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Recently, cfi_stubs were introduced. However, existing struct_ops types
>>> that are not in the upstream may not be aware of this, resulting in 
>>> kernel
>>> crashes. By rejecting struct_ops types that do not provide cfi_stubs 
>>> during
>>> registration, these crashes can be avoided.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>   kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 5 +++++
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>>> index 0d7be97a2411..e35958142dce 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
>>> @@ -302,6 +302,11 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_desc_init(struct 
>>> bpf_struct_ops_desc *st_ops_desc,
>>>       }
>>>       sprintf(value_name, "%s%s", VALUE_PREFIX, st_ops->name);
>>> +    if (!st_ops->cfi_stubs) {
>>
>> How about *(void **)(st_ops->cfi_stubs + moff) ? Does it need a NULL 
>> check?
> 
> This NULL check is necessary to prevent the crash but good to have.
                     ^^^ I mean "not necessary"
> 
>>
>> Please add a test.
> 
> Got it!
> 
>>
>>> +        pr_warn("The struct_ops %s has no cfi_stubs\n", st_ops->name);
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>       type_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, st_ops->name,
>>>                       BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
>>>       if (type_id < 0) {
>>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
index 0d7be97a2411..e35958142dce 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
@@ -302,6 +302,11 @@  int bpf_struct_ops_desc_init(struct bpf_struct_ops_desc *st_ops_desc,
 	}
 	sprintf(value_name, "%s%s", VALUE_PREFIX, st_ops->name);
 
+	if (!st_ops->cfi_stubs) {
+		pr_warn("The struct_ops %s has no cfi_stubs\n", st_ops->name);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	type_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, st_ops->name,
 					BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
 	if (type_id < 0) {