linux-stable.git/kernel/bpf/helpers.c, branch v6.2.16

bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} kfuncs

2023-05-11T14:11:11+00:00

[ Upstream commit bd1279ae8a691d7ec75852c6d0a22139afb034a4 ]

This patch adds implementations of bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first}
and teaches verifier about their BTF_IDs as well as those of
bpf_rb_{root,node}.

All three kfuncs have some nonstandard component to their verification
that needs to be addressed in future patches before programs can
properly use them:

  * bpf_rbtree_add:     Takes 'less' callback, need to verify it

  * bpf_rbtree_first:   Returns ptr_to_node_type(off=rb_node_off) instead
                        of ptr_to_rb_node(off=0). Return value ref is
			non-owning.

  * bpf_rbtree_remove:  Returns ptr_to_node_type(off=rb_node_off) instead
                        of ptr_to_rb_node(off=0). 2nd arg (node) is a
			non-owning reference.

Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230214004017.2534011-3-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Stable-dep-of: f6a6a5a97628 ("bpf: Fix struct_meta lookup for bpf_obj_free_fields kfunc call")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Add basic bpf_rb_{root,node} support

2023-05-11T14:11:11+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9c395c1b99bd23f74bc628fa000480c49593d17f ]

This patch adds special BPF_RB_{ROOT,NODE} btf_field_types similar to
BPF_LIST_{HEAD,NODE}, adds the necessary plumbing to detect the new
types, and adds bpf_rb_root_free function for freeing bpf_rb_root in
map_values.

structs bpf_rb_root and bpf_rb_node are opaque types meant to
obscure structs rb_root_cached rb_node, respectively.

btf_struct_access will prevent BPF programs from touching these special
fields automatically now that they're recognized.

btf_check_and_fixup_fields now groups list_head and rb_root together as
"graph root" fields and {list,rb}_node as "graph node", and does same
ownership cycle checking as before. Note that this function does _not_
prevent ownership type mixups (e.g. rb_root owning list_node) - that's
handled by btf_parse_graph_root.

After this patch, a bpf program can have a struct bpf_rb_root in a
map_value, but not add anything to nor do anything useful with it.

Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230214004017.2534011-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Stable-dep-of: f6a6a5a97628 ("bpf: Fix struct_meta lookup for bpf_obj_free_fields kfunc call")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: rename list_head -> graph_root in field info types

2023-05-11T14:11:11+00:00

[ Upstream commit 30465003ad776a922c32b2dac58db14f120f037e ]

Many of the structs recently added to track field info for linked-list
head are useful as-is for rbtree root. So let's do a mechanical renaming
of list_head-related types and fields:

include/linux/bpf.h:
  struct btf_field_list_head -> struct btf_field_graph_root
  list_head -> graph_root in struct btf_field union
kernel/bpf/btf.c:
  list_head -> graph_root in struct btf_field_info

This is a nonfunctional change, functionality to actually use these
fields for rbtree will be added in further patches.

Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221217082506.1570898-5-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Stable-dep-of: f6a6a5a97628 ("bpf: Fix struct_meta lookup for bpf_obj_free_fields kfunc call")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Use memmove for bpf_dynptr_{read,write}

2022-12-09T02:39:28+00:00

It may happen that destination buffer memory overlaps with memory dynptr
points to. Hence, we must use memmove to correctly copy from dynptr to
destination buffer, or source buffer to dynptr.

This actually isn't a problem right now, as memcpy implementation falls
back to memmove on detecting overlap and warns about it, but we
shouldn't be relying on that.

Acked-by: Joanne Koong 
Acked-by: David Vernet 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207204141.308952-7-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Rework process_dynptr_func

2022-12-09T02:25:31+00:00

Recently, user ringbuf support introduced a PTR_TO_DYNPTR register type
for use in callback state, because in case of user ringbuf helpers,
there is no dynptr on the stack that is passed into the callback. To
reflect such a state, a special register type was created.

However, some checks have been bypassed incorrectly during the addition
of this feature. First, for arg_type with MEM_UNINIT flag which
initialize a dynptr, they must be rejected for such register type.
Secondly, in the future, there are plans to add dynptr helpers that
operate on the dynptr itself and may change its offset and other
properties.

In all of these cases, PTR_TO_DYNPTR shouldn't be allowed to be passed
to such helpers, however the current code simply returns 0.

The rejection for helpers that release the dynptr is already handled.

For fixing this, we take a step back and rework existing code in a way
that will allow fitting in all classes of helpers and have a coherent
model for dealing with the variety of use cases in which dynptr is used.

First, for ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR, it can either be set alone or together
with a DYNPTR_TYPE_* constant that denotes the only type it accepts.

Next, helpers which initialize a dynptr use MEM_UNINIT to indicate this
fact. To make the distinction clear, use MEM_RDONLY flag to indicate
that the helper only operates on the memory pointed to by the dynptr,
not the dynptr itself. In C parlance, it would be equivalent to taking
the dynptr as a point to const argument.

When either of these flags are not present, the helper is allowed to
mutate both the dynptr itself and also the memory it points to.
Currently, the read only status of the memory is not tracked in the
dynptr, but it would be trivial to add this support inside dynptr state
of the register.

With these changes and renaming PTR_TO_DYNPTR to CONST_PTR_TO_DYNPTR to
better reflect its usage, it can no longer be passed to helpers that
initialize a dynptr, i.e. bpf_dynptr_from_mem, bpf_ringbuf_reserve_dynptr.

A note to reviewers is that in code that does mark_stack_slots_dynptr,
and unmark_stack_slots_dynptr, we implicitly rely on the fact that
PTR_TO_STACK reg is the only case that can reach that code path, as one
cannot pass CONST_PTR_TO_DYNPTR to helpers that don't set MEM_RDONLY. In
both cases such helpers won't be setting that flag.

The next patch will add a couple of selftest cases to make sure this
doesn't break.

Fixes: 205715673844 ("bpf: Add bpf_user_ringbuf_drain() helper")
Acked-by: Joanne Koong 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207204141.308952-4-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf/docs: Document struct cgroup * kfuncs

2022-12-08T01:11:24+00:00

bpf_cgroup_acquire(), bpf_cgroup_release(), bpf_cgroup_kptr_get(), and
bpf_cgroup_ancestor(), are kfuncs that were recently added to
kernel/bpf/helpers.c. These are "core" kfuncs in that they're available
for use in any tracepoint or struct_ops BPF program. Though they have no
ABI stability guarantees, we should still document them. This patch adds
a struct cgroup * subsection to the Core kfuncs section which describes
each of these kfuncs.

Signed-off-by: David Vernet 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207204911.873646-3-void@manifault.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf/docs: Document struct task_struct * kfuncs

2022-12-08T01:09:13+00:00

bpf_task_acquire(), bpf_task_release(), and bpf_task_from_pid() are
kfuncs that were recently added to kernel/bpf/helpers.c. These are
"core" kfuncs in that they're available for use for any tracepoint or
struct_ops BPF program. Though they have no ABI stability guarantees, we
should still document them. This patch adds a new Core kfuncs section to
the BPF kfuncs doc, and adds entries for all of these task kfuncs.

Note that bpf_task_kptr_get() is not documented, as it still returns
NULL while we're working to resolve how it can use RCU to ensure struct
task_struct * lifetime.

Signed-off-by: David Vernet 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207204911.873646-2-void@manifault.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Don't use rcu_users to refcount in task kfuncs

2022-12-07T00:40:16+00:00

A series of prior patches added some kfuncs that allow struct
task_struct * objects to be used as kptrs. These kfuncs leveraged the
'refcount_t rcu_users' field of the task for performing refcounting.
This field was used instead of 'refcount_t usage', as we wanted to
leverage the safety provided by RCU for ensuring a task's lifetime.

A struct task_struct is refcounted by two different refcount_t fields:

1. p->usage:     The "true" refcount field which task lifetime. The
		 task is freed as soon as this refcount drops to 0.

2. p->rcu_users: An "RCU users" refcount field which is statically
		 initialized to 2, and is co-located in a union with
		 a struct rcu_head field (p->rcu). p->rcu_users
		 essentially encapsulates a single p->usage
		 refcount, and when p->rcu_users goes to 0, an RCU
		 callback is scheduled on the struct rcu_head which
		 decrements the p->usage refcount.

Our logic was that by using p->rcu_users, we would be able to use RCU to
safely issue refcount_inc_not_zero() a task's rcu_users field to
determine if a task could still be acquired, or was exiting.
Unfortunately, this does not work due to p->rcu_users and p->rcu sharing
a union. When p->rcu_users goes to 0, an RCU callback is scheduled to
drop a single p->usage refcount, and because the fields share a union,
the refcount immediately becomes nonzero again after the callback is
scheduled.

If we were to split the fields out of the union, this wouldn't be a
problem. Doing so should also be rather non-controversial, as there are
a number of places in struct task_struct that have padding which we
could use to avoid growing the structure by splitting up the fields.

For now, so as to fix the kfuncs to be correct, this patch instead
updates bpf_task_acquire() and bpf_task_release() to use the p->usage
field for refcounting via the get_task_struct() and put_task_struct()
functions. Because we can no longer rely on RCU, the change also guts
the bpf_task_acquire_not_zero() and bpf_task_kptr_get() functions
pending a resolution on the above problem.

In addition, the task fixes the kfunc and rcu_read_lock selftests to
expect this new behavior.

Fixes: 90660309b0c7 ("bpf: Add kfuncs for storing struct task_struct * as a kptr")
Fixes: fca1aa75518c ("bpf: Handle MEM_RCU type properly")
Reported-by: Matus Jokay 
Signed-off-by: David Vernet 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221206210538.597606-1-void@manifault.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Handle MEM_RCU type properly

2022-12-04T20:52:40+00:00

Commit 9bb00b2895cb ("bpf: Add kfunc bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock()")
introduced MEM_RCU and bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock() support. In that
commit, a rcu pointer is tagged with both MEM_RCU and PTR_TRUSTED
so that it can be passed into kfuncs or helpers as an argument.

Martin raised a good question in [1] such that the rcu pointer,
although being able to accessing the object, might have reference
count of 0. This might cause a problem if the rcu pointer is passed
to a kfunc which expects trusted arguments where ref count should
be greater than 0.

This patch makes the following changes related to MEM_RCU pointer:
  - MEM_RCU pointer might be NULL (PTR_MAYBE_NULL).
  - Introduce KF_RCU so MEM_RCU ptr can be acquired with
    a KF_RCU tagged kfunc which assumes ref count of rcu ptr
    could be zero.
  - For mem access 'b = ptr->a', say 'ptr' is a MEM_RCU ptr, and
    'a' is tagged with __rcu as well. Let us mark 'b' as
    MEM_RCU | PTR_MAYBE_NULL.

 [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ac70f574-4023-664e-b711-e0d3b18117fd@linux.dev/

Fixes: 9bb00b2895cb ("bpf: Add kfunc bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock()")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221203184602.477272-1-yhs@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Add kfunc bpf_rcu_read_lock/unlock()

2022-11-24T20:54:13+00:00

Add two kfunc's bpf_rcu_read_lock() and bpf_rcu_read_unlock(). These two kfunc's
can be used for all program types. The following is an example about how
rcu pointer are used w.r.t. bpf_rcu_read_lock()/bpf_rcu_read_unlock().

  struct task_struct {
    ...
    struct task_struct              *last_wakee;
    struct task_struct __rcu        *real_parent;
    ...
  };

Let us say prog does 'task = bpf_get_current_task_btf()' to get a
'task' pointer. The basic rules are:
  - 'real_parent = task->real_parent' should be inside bpf_rcu_read_lock
    region. This is to simulate rcu_dereference() operation. The
    'real_parent' is marked as MEM_RCU only if (1). task->real_parent is
    inside bpf_rcu_read_lock region, and (2). task is a trusted ptr. So
    MEM_RCU marked ptr can be 'trusted' inside the bpf_rcu_read_lock region.
  - 'last_wakee = real_parent->last_wakee' should be inside bpf_rcu_read_lock
    region since it tries to access rcu protected memory.
  - the ptr 'last_wakee' will be marked as PTR_UNTRUSTED since in general
    it is not clear whether the object pointed by 'last_wakee' is valid or
    not even inside bpf_rcu_read_lock region.

The verifier will reset all rcu pointer register states to untrusted
at bpf_rcu_read_unlock() kfunc call site, so any such rcu pointer
won't be trusted any more outside the bpf_rcu_read_lock() region.

The current implementation does not support nested rcu read lock
region in the prog.

Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau 
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221124053217.2373910-1-yhs@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov