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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     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?
>
> It's not a pointer dereference. It's math on the pointer. The
> &vm_file->f_path part.

Ah, I see... Makes sense now.

> The helper can check that it's [0, few_pages] and declare it's bad.

That's basically what happens with direct memory reads, so I guess it
would be fine.

> I guess we can do that and only do what I proposed for "more than a page"
> math on the pointer. Or even disallow "add more than a page offset to
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID"
> for now, since it will cover 99% of the cases.