Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, doc: Update bpf_jit_enable limitation for CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 04/27/2018 11:49 AM, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:44:44AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 04/26/2018 04:26 AM, Leo Yan wrote:
>>> When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, kernel has limitation for
>>> bpf_jit_enable, so it has fixed value 1 and we cannot set it to 2
>>> for JIT opcode dumping; this patch is to update the doc for it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/networking/filter.txt | 6 ++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.txt b/Documentation/networking/filter.txt
>>> index fd55c7d..feddab9 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.txt
>>> @@ -483,6 +483,12 @@ Example output from dmesg:
>>>  [ 3389.935851] JIT code: 00000030: 00 e8 28 94 ff e0 83 f8 01 75 07 b8 ff ff 00 00
>>>  [ 3389.935852] JIT code: 00000040: eb 02 31 c0 c9 c3
>>>  
>>> +When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, bpf_jit_enable is set to 1 by default
>>> +and it returns failure if change to any other value from proc node; this is
>>> +for security consideration to avoid leaking info to unprivileged users. In this
>>> +case, we can't directly dump JIT opcode image from kernel log, alternatively we
>>> +need to use bpf tool for the dumping.
>>> +
>>
>> Could you change this doc text a bit, I think it's slightly misleading. From the first
>> sentence one could also interpret that value 0 would leaking info to unprivileged users
>> whereas here we're only talking about the case of value 2. Maybe something roughly like
>> this to make it more clear:
>>
>>   When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, bpf_jit_enable is permanently set to 1 and
>>   setting any other value than that will return in failure. This is even the case for
>>   setting bpf_jit_enable to 2, since dumping the final JIT image into the kernel log
>>   is discouraged and introspection through bpftool (under tools/bpf/bpftool/) is the
>>   generally recommended approach instead.
> 
> Yeah, your rephrasing is more clear and better.  Will do this and send
> new patch soon.  Thanks for your helping.

Awesome, thank you!