Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/5] bpf: Expose bpf_get_socket_cookie to tracing programs

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:32 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/30/21 12:45 PM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:49 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 1/29/21 11:57 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >>> On 1/27/21 10:01 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:36 AM Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This needs a new helper that:
> >>>>> - can work in a sleepable context (using sock_gen_cookie)
> >>>>> - takes a struct sock pointer and checks that it's not NULL
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Acked-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>    include/linux/bpf.h            |  1 +
> >>>>>    include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  8 ++++++++
> >>>>>    kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c       |  2 ++
> >>>>>    net/core/filter.c              | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>    tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  8 ++++++++
> >>>>>    5 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> index 1aac2af12fed..26219465e1f7 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> @@ -1874,6 +1874,7 @@ extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_per_cpu_ptr_proto;
> >>>>>    extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_this_cpu_ptr_proto;
> >>>>>    extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_ktime_get_coarse_ns_proto;
> >>>>>    extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sock_from_file_proto;
> >>>>> +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_socket_ptr_cookie_proto;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    const struct bpf_func_proto *bpf_tracing_func_proto(
> >>>>>           enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog);
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> index 0b735c2729b2..5855c398d685 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >>>>> @@ -1673,6 +1673,14 @@ union bpf_attr {
> >>>>>     *     Return
> >>>>>     *             A 8-byte long unique number.
> >>>>>     *
> >>>>> + * u64 bpf_get_socket_cookie(void *sk)
> >>>>
> >>>> should the type be `struct sock *` then?
> >>>
> >>> Checking libbpf's generated bpf_helper_defs.h it generates:
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>>    * bpf_get_socket_cookie
> >>>    *
> >>>    *      If the **struct sk_buff** pointed by *skb* has a known socket,
> >>>    *      retrieve the cookie (generated by the kernel) of this socket.
> >>>    *      If no cookie has been set yet, generate a new cookie. Once
> >>>    *      generated, the socket cookie remains stable for the life of the
> >>>    *      socket. This helper can be useful for monitoring per socket
> >>>    *      networking traffic statistics as it provides a global socket
> >>>    *      identifier that can be assumed unique.
> >>>    *
> >>>    * Returns
> >>>    *      A 8-byte long non-decreasing number on success, or 0 if the
> >>>    *      socket field is missing inside *skb*.
> >>>    */
> >>> static __u64 (*bpf_get_socket_cookie)(void *ctx) = (void *) 46;
> >>>
> >>> So in terms of helper comment it's picking up the description from the
> >>> `u64 bpf_get_socket_cookie(struct sk_buff *skb)` signature. With that
> >>> in mind it would likely make sense to add the actual `struct sock *` type
> >>> to the comment to make it more clear in here.
> >>
> >> One thought that still came to mind when looking over the series again, do
> >> we need to blacklist certain functions from bpf_get_socket_cookie() under
> >> tracing e.g. when attaching to, say fexit? For example, if sk_prot_free()
> >> would be temporary uninlined/exported for testing and bpf_get_socket_cookie()
> >> was invoked from a prog upon fexit where sock was already passed back to
> >> allocator, I presume there's risk of mem corruption, no?
> >
> > Mh, this is interesting. I can try to add a deny list in v7 but I'm
> > not sure whether I'll be able to catch them all. I'm assuming that
> > __sk_destruct, sk_destruct, __sk_free, sk_free would be other
> > problematic functions but potentially there would be more.
>
> I was just looking at bpf_skb_output() from a7658e1a4164 ("bpf: Check types of
> arguments passed into helpers") which afaiu has similar issue, back at the time
> this was introduced there was no fentry/fexit but rather raw tp progs, so you
> could still safely dump skb this way including for kfree_skb() tp. Presumably if
> you bpf_skb_output() at 'fexit/kfree_skb' you might be able to similarly crash

the verifier cannot check absolutely everything.
Whitelisting and blacklisting all combinations is not practical.

> your kernel which I don't think is intentional (also given we go above and beyond
> in other areas to avoid crashing or destabilizing e.g. [0] to mention one). Maybe
> these should really only be for BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP (or BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) where it
> can be audited that it's safe to use like a7658e1a4164's original intention ...
> or have some sort of function annotation like __acquires/__releases but for tracing
> e.g. __frees(skb) where use would then be blocked (not sure iff feasible).

I think this set is useful and corner cases like fexit in sk_free are
not worth the hassle.
One can install xdp prog that drops all packets. The server is dead at
this point.