Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Allow bpf_d_path in perf_event_mmap

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:53 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:32 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/1/21 8:01 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:17 PM Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2021/10/30 1:02 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:47 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:43:57PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> > >>>>> Allow the helper to be called from the perf_event_mmap hook. This is
> > >>>>> convenient to lookup vma->vm_file and implement a similar logic as
> > >>>>> perf_event_mmap_event in BPF.
> > >>>>  From struct vm_area_struct:
> > >>>>          struct file * vm_file;          /* File we map to (can be NULL). */
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Under perf_event_mmap, vm_file won't be NULL or bpf_d_path can handle it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks Martin, this is a very good point. :) Yes, vm_file can be NULL
> > >>> in perf_event_mmap.
> > >>> I wonder what would happen (and what we could do about it? :|).
> > >>> bpf_d_path is called on &vma->vm_file->f_path So without NULL checks
> > >>> (of vm_file) in BPF, the helper wouldn't be called with a NULL pointer
> > >>> but rather with an address that is offsetof(struct file, f_path).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I tested this patch with the following BCC script:
> > >>
> > >>      bpf_text = '''
> > >>      #include <linux/mm_types.h>
> > >>
> > >>      KFUNC_PROBE(perf_event_mmap, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > >>      {
> > >>          char path[256] = {};
> > >>
> > >>          bpf_d_path(&vma->vm_file->f_path, path, sizeof(path));
> > >>          bpf_trace_printk("perf_event_mmap %s", path);
> > >>          return 0;
> > >>      }
> > >>      '''
> > >>
> > >>      b = BPF(text=bpf_text)
> > >>      print("BPF program loaded")
> > >>      b.trace_print()
> > >>
> > >> This change causes kernel panic. I think it's because of this NULL pointer.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the testing and repro Hengqi :)
> > > Indeed, I was able to reproduce this panic. When vma->vm_file is NULL,
> > > &vma->vm_file->f_path ends up being 0x18 so d_path causes a panic.
> > > I suppose that this sort of issue must be relatively common in helpers
> > > that take a PTR_TO_BTF_ID though ? I wonder if there is anything that
> >
> > Most non-tracing ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID argument has strict helper/prog_type
> > protection and should be okay although I didn't check them 100%.
> >
> > For some tracing helpers with ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID argument, we have
> > bpf_seq_printf/bpf_seq_write which has strict context as well and should
> > not be NULL.
> >
> > For helper bpf_task_pt_regs() which can attach to ANY kernel function,
> > we kind of assume "task" is not NULL which should be the case in "almost
> > all* cases from kernel internal data structure.
> >
> > > the verifier could do about this ? For example if vma->vm_file could
> > > be PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL and therefore vma->vm_file->f_path somehow
> > > considered invalid ?
> >
> > Verifier has no way to know whether vma->vm_file is NULL or not during
> > verification time. So in your case, if we have to be conservative, that
> > means verifier will reject the program.
> >
> > One possible way could be add a mode in verifier, we still *go through*
> > the process for direct memory access but we require user explicit
> > checking NULL pointers. This way, user will be forced to write code like
> >
> >     FILE *vm_file = vma->vm_file; /* no checking is needed, vma from
> > parameter which is not NULL */
> >     if (vm_file)
> >       bpf_d_path(&vm_file->f_path, path, sizeof(path));
>
> That should work.
> The verifier can achieve that by marking certain fields as PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL
> instead of PTR_TO_BTF_ID while walking such pointers.
> And then disallow pointer arithmetic on PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL until it
> goes through 'if (Rx == NULL)' check inside the program and gets converted to
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
> Initially we can hard code such fields via BTF_ID(struct, file) macro.'
> So any pointer that results into a 'struct file' pointer will be
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL.

Can we just require all helpers to check NULL if they accept
PTR_TO_BTF_ID? It's always been a case that PTR_TO_BTF_ID can be null.
We should audit all the helpers with ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID and ensure they
do proper validation, of course.

Or am I missing the essence of the issue?