Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access kernel memory that can fault
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Tue Feb 26 2019 - 10:24:53 EST
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:27:05AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:43:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Then we should still probably fix up "__probe_kernel_read()" to not
> > allow user accesses. The easiest way to do that is actually likely to
> > use the "unsafe_get_user()" functions *without* doing a
> > uaccess_begin(), which will mean that modern CPU's will simply fault
> > on a kernel access to user space.
> On bpf side the bpf_probe_read() helper just calls probe_kernel_read()
> and users pass both user and kernel addresses into it and expect
> that the helper will actually try to read from that address.
Slightly related and FWIW, BCC's eBPF-based opensnoop tool  installs a
kprobe on do_sys_open to monitor calls to the open syscall globally.
do_sys_open() has prototype:
long do_sys_open(int dfd, const char __user *filename, int flags, umode_t mode);
This causes a "blank" filename to be displayed by opensnoop when I run it on
my Pixel 3 (arm64), possibly because this is a user pointer. However, it
works fine on x86-64.
So it seems to me that on arm64, reading user pointers directly still doesn't
work even if there is a distinction between user/kernel addresses. In that
case reading the user pointer using user accessors (possibly using
bpf_probe_user_read helper) should be needed to fix this issue (as Yonghong
also privately discussed with me).
> If __probe_kernel_read will suddenly start failing on all user addresses
> it will break the expectations.
> How do we solve it in bpf_probe_read?
> Call probe_kernel_read and if that fails call unsafe_get_user byte-by-byte
> in the loop?
> That's doable, but people already complain that bpf_probe_read() is slow
> and shows up in their perf report.