Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Add a bpf_snprintf helper

[Florent Revest]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:21 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:02:08PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote:
> >
> > +struct bpf_snprintf_buf {
> > +     char buf[MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY][MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN];
> > +};
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bpf_snprintf_buf, bpf_snprintf_buf);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> > +
> > +BPF_CALL_5(bpf_snprintf, char *, out, u32, out_size, char *, fmt, u64 *, args,
> > +        u32, args_len)
> > +{
> > +     int err, i, buf_used, copy_size, fmt_cnt = 0, memcpy_cnt = 0;
> > +     u64 params[MAX_SNPRINTF_VARARGS];
> > +     struct bpf_snprintf_buf *bufs;
> > +
> > +     buf_used = this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> > +     if (WARN_ON_ONCE(buf_used > 1)) {
>
> this can trigger only if the helper itself gets preempted and
> another bpf prog will run on the same cpu and will call into this helper
> again, right?
> If so, how about adding preempt_disable here to avoid this case?

Ah, neat, that sounds like a good idea indeed. This was really just
cargo-culted from bpf_seq_printf but as part of my grand unification
attempt for the various printf-like helpers, I can try to make it use
preempt_disable as well yes.

> It won't prevent the case where kprobe is inside snprintf core,
> so the counter is still needed, but it wouldn't trigger by accident.

Good point, I will keep it around then.

> Also since bufs are not used always, how about grabbing the
> buffers only when %p or %s are seen in fmt?
> After snprintf() is done it would conditionally do:
> if (bufs_were_used) {
>    this_cpu_dec(bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
>    preempt_enable();
> }
> This way simple bpf_snprintf won't ever hit EBUSY.

Absolutely, it would be nice. :)

> > +             err = -EBUSY;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     bufs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_snprintf_buf);
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * The verifier has already done most of the heavy-work for us in
> > +      * check_bpf_snprintf_call. We know that fmt is well formatted and that
> > +      * args_len is valid. The only task left is to convert some of the
> > +      * arguments. For the %s and %pi* specifiers, we need to read buffers
> > +      * from a kernel address during the helper call.
> > +      */
> > +     for (i = 0; fmt[i] != '\0'; i++) {
> > +             if (fmt[i] != '%')
> > +                     continue;
> > +
> > +             if (fmt[i + 1] == '%') {
> > +                     i++;
> > +                     continue;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             /* fmt[i] != 0 && fmt[last] == 0, so we can access fmt[i + 1] */
> > +             i++;
> > +
> > +             /* skip optional "[0 +-][num]" width formating field */
> > +             while (fmt[i] == '0' || fmt[i] == '+'  || fmt[i] == '-' ||
> > +                    fmt[i] == ' ')
> > +                     i++;
> > +             if (fmt[i] >= '1' && fmt[i] <= '9') {
> > +                     i++;
> > +                     while (fmt[i] >= '0' && fmt[i] <= '9')
> > +                             i++;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             if (fmt[i] == 's') {
> > +                     void *unsafe_ptr = (void *)(long)args[fmt_cnt];
> > +
> > +                     err = strncpy_from_kernel_nofault(bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt],
> > +                                                       unsafe_ptr,
> > +                                                       MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN);
> > +                     if (err < 0)
> > +                             bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt][0] = '\0';
> > +                     params[fmt_cnt] = (u64)(long)bufs->buf[memcpy_cnt];
>
> how about:
> char buf[512]; instead?
> instead of memcpy_cnt++ remember how many bytes of the buf were used and
> copy next arg after that.
> The scratch space would be used more efficiently.
> The helper would potentially return ENOSPC if the first string printed via %s
> consumed most of the 512 space and the second string doesn't fit.
> But the verifier-time if (memcpy_cnt >= MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY) can be removed.
> Ten small %s will work fine.

Cool! That is also a good idea :)

> We can allocate a page per-cpu when this helper is used by prog and free
> that page when all progs with bpf_snprintf are unloaded.
> But extra complexity is probably not worth it. I would start with 512 per-cpu.
> It's going to be enough for most users.

Yes, let's maybe keep that for later. I think there is already enough
complexity going into the printf-like helpers unification patch.

> Overall looks great. Cannot wait for v2 :)

Ahah wait until you see that patch! :D