linux-stable.git/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c, branch v4.19.321 Linux kernel stable tree bpf: Clear the probe_addr for uprobe 2023-09-23T08:48:00+00:00 Yafang Shao laoar.shao@gmail.com 2023-07-09T02:56:25+00:00 ccd55e9408aa889f9b248252fabd9f0797b59c43 [ Upstream commit 5125e757e62f6c1d5478db4c2b61a744060ddf3f ] To avoid returning uninitialized or random values when querying the file descriptor (fd) and accessing probe_addr, it is necessary to clear the variable prior to its use. Fixes: 41bdc4b40ed6 ("bpf: introduce bpf subcommand BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230709025630.3735-6-laoar.shao@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit 5125e757e62f6c1d5478db4c2b61a744060ddf3f ]

To avoid returning uninitialized or random values when querying the file
descriptor (fd) and accessing probe_addr, it is necessary to clear the
variable prior to its use.

Fixes: 41bdc4b40ed6 ("bpf: introduce bpf subcommand BPF_TASK_FD_QUERY")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230709025630.3735-6-laoar.shao@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
tracepoint: Add tracepoint_probe_register_may_exist() for BPF tracing 2021-07-20T14:15:42+00:00 Steven Rostedt (VMware) rostedt@goodmis.org 2021-06-29T13:40:10+00:00 47ab2c74132cc926b9a6099aa985efcb721f4d00 commit 9913d5745bd720c4266805c8d29952a3702e4eca upstream. All internal use cases for tracepoint_probe_register() is set to not ever be called with the same function and data. If it is, it is considered a bug, as that means the accounting of handling tracepoints is corrupted. If the function and data for a tracepoint is already registered when tracepoint_probe_register() is called, it will call WARN_ON_ONCE() and return with EEXISTS. The BPF system call can end up calling tracepoint_probe_register() with the same data, which now means that this can trigger the warning because of a user space process. As WARN_ON_ONCE() should not be called because user space called a system call with bad data, there needs to be a way to register a tracepoint without triggering a warning. Enter tracepoint_probe_register_may_exist(), which can be called, but will not cause a WARN_ON() if the probe already exists. It will still error out with EEXIST, which will then be sent to the user space that performed the BPF system call. This keeps the previous testing for issues with other users of the tracepoint code, while letting BPF call it with duplicated data and not warn about it. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210626135845.4080-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/ Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=41f4318cf01762389f4d1c1c459da4f542fe5153 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: c4f6699dfcb85 ("bpf: introduce BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT") Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+721aa903751db87aa244@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Tested-by: syzbot+721aa903751db87aa244@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit 9913d5745bd720c4266805c8d29952a3702e4eca upstream.

All internal use cases for tracepoint_probe_register() is set to not ever
be called with the same function and data. If it is, it is considered a
bug, as that means the accounting of handling tracepoints is corrupted.
If the function and data for a tracepoint is already registered when
tracepoint_probe_register() is called, it will call WARN_ON_ONCE() and
return with EEXISTS.

The BPF system call can end up calling tracepoint_probe_register() with
the same data, which now means that this can trigger the warning because
of a user space process. As WARN_ON_ONCE() should not be called because
user space called a system call with bad data, there needs to be a way to
register a tracepoint without triggering a warning.

Enter tracepoint_probe_register_may_exist(), which can be called, but will
not cause a WARN_ON() if the probe already exists. It will still error out
with EEXIST, which will then be sent to the user space that performed the
BPF system call.

This keeps the previous testing for issues with other users of the
tracepoint code, while letting BPF call it with duplicated data and not
warn about it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210626135845.4080-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/
Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=41f4318cf01762389f4d1c1c459da4f542fe5153

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: c4f6699dfcb85 ("bpf: introduce BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+721aa903751db87aa244@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Tested-by: syzbot+721aa903751db87aa244@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
bpf: fix nested bpf tracepoints with per-cpu data 2019-07-03T11:14:48+00:00 Matt Mullins mmullins@fb.com 2019-06-11T21:53:04+00:00 a7177b94aff4febe657fe31bb7e5ecdef72079f4 commit 9594dc3c7e71b9f52bee1d7852eb3d4e3aea9e99 upstream. BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINTs can be executed nested on the same CPU, as they do not increment bpf_prog_active while executing. This enables three levels of nesting, to support - a kprobe or raw tp or perf event, - another one of the above that irq context happens to call, and - another one in nmi context (at most one of which may be a kprobe or perf event). Fixes: 20b9d7ac4852 ("bpf: avoid excessive stack usage for perf_sample_data") Signed-off-by: Matt Mullins <mmullins@fb.com> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 
commit 9594dc3c7e71b9f52bee1d7852eb3d4e3aea9e99 upstream.

BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINTs can be executed nested on the same CPU, as
they do not increment bpf_prog_active while executing.

This enables three levels of nesting, to support
  - a kprobe or raw tp or perf event,
  - another one of the above that irq context happens to call, and
  - another one in nmi context
(at most one of which may be a kprobe or perf event).

Fixes: 20b9d7ac4852 ("bpf: avoid excessive stack usage for perf_sample_data")
Signed-off-by: Matt Mullins <mmullins@fb.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
bpf: fix potential deadlock in bpf_prog_register 2019-03-13T21:02:36+00:00 Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org 2019-01-31T02:12:44+00:00 3bbe6a4212800a9b73984e5d73349db478a6711e [ Upstream commit e16ec34039c701594d55d08a5aa49ee3e1abc821 ] Lockdep found a potential deadlock between cpu_hotplug_lock, bpf_event_mutex, and cpuctx_mutex: [ 13.007000] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 13.007587] 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477 Not tainted [ 13.008124] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 13.008624] test_progs/246 is trying to acquire lock: [ 13.009030] 0000000094160d1d (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}, at: tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.009770] [ 13.009770] but task is already holding lock: [ 13.010239] 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60 [ 13.010877] [ 13.010877] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 13.010877] [ 13.011532] [ 13.011532] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 13.012129] [ 13.012129] -> #4 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}: [ 13.012582] perf_event_query_prog_array+0x9b/0x130 [ 13.013016] _perf_ioctl+0x3aa/0x830 [ 13.013354] perf_ioctl+0x2e/0x50 [ 13.013668] do_vfs_ioctl+0x8f/0x6a0 [ 13.014003] ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80 [ 13.014320] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 [ 13.014668] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 13.015007] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 13.015469] [ 13.015469] -> #3 (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+.}: [ 13.015910] perf_event_init_cpu+0x5a/0x90 [ 13.016291] perf_event_init+0x1b2/0x1de [ 13.016654] start_kernel+0x2b8/0x42a [ 13.016995] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 13.017382] [ 13.017382] -> #2 (pmus_lock){+.+.}: [ 13.017794] perf_event_init_cpu+0x21/0x90 [ 13.018172] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xb3/0x960 [ 13.018573] _cpu_up+0xa7/0x140 [ 13.018871] do_cpu_up+0xa4/0xc0 [ 13.019178] smp_init+0xcd/0xd2 [ 13.019483] kernel_init_freeable+0x123/0x24f [ 13.019878] kernel_init+0xa/0x110 [ 13.020201] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 [ 13.020541] [ 13.020541] -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}: [ 13.021051] static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20 [ 13.021424] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x28c/0x300 [ 13.021891] perf_trace_event_init+0x11f/0x250 [ 13.022297] perf_trace_init+0x6b/0xa0 [ 13.022644] perf_tp_event_init+0x25/0x40 [ 13.023011] perf_try_init_event+0x6b/0x90 [ 13.023386] perf_event_alloc+0x9a8/0xc40 [ 13.023754] __do_sys_perf_event_open+0x1dd/0xd30 [ 13.024173] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 13.024519] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 13.024968] [ 13.024968] -> #0 (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}: [ 13.025434] __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970 [ 13.025764] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.026215] bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60 [ 13.026584] bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130 [ 13.027042] __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90 [ 13.027389] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 13.027727] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 13.028171] [ 13.028171] other info that might help us debug this: [ 13.028171] [ 13.028807] Chain exists of: [ 13.028807] tracepoints_mutex --> &cpuctx_mutex --> bpf_event_mutex [ 13.028807] [ 13.029666] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 13.029666] [ 13.030140] CPU0 CPU1 [ 13.030510] ---- ---- [ 13.030875] lock(bpf_event_mutex); [ 13.031166] lock(&cpuctx_mutex); [ 13.031645] lock(bpf_event_mutex); [ 13.032135] lock(tracepoints_mutex); [ 13.032441] [ 13.032441] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 13.032441] [ 13.032911] 1 lock held by test_progs/246: [ 13.033239] #0: 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60 [ 13.033909] [ 13.033909] stack backtrace: [ 13.034258] CPU: 1 PID: 246 Comm: test_progs Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477 [ 13.034964] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 13.035657] Call Trace: [ 13.035859] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 13.036130] print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x1ce/0x1db [ 13.036526] __lock_acquire+0x1158/0x1350 [ 13.036852] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 13.037154] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 13.037447] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.037876] __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970 [ 13.038167] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.038600] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.039028] ? __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970 [ 13.039337] ? __mutex_lock+0x24a/0x970 [ 13.039649] ? bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60 [ 13.039992] ? __bpf_trace_sched_wake_idle_without_ipi+0x10/0x10 [ 13.040478] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.040906] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300 [ 13.041325] bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60 [ 13.041649] bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130 [ 13.042068] ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 [ 13.042374] __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90 [ 13.042678] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 13.042975] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 13.043382] RIP: 0033:0x7f23b10a07f9 [ 13.045155] RSP: 002b:00007ffdef42fdd8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141 [ 13.045759] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffdef42ff70 RCX: 00007f23b10a07f9 [ 13.046326] RDX: 0000000000000070 RSI: 00007ffdef42fe10 RDI: 0000000000000011 [ 13.046893] RBP: 00007ffdef42fdf0 R08: 0000000000000038 R09: 00007ffdef42fe10 [ 13.047462] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000000 [ 13.048029] R13: 0000000000000016 R14: 00007f23b1db4690 R15: 0000000000000000 Since tracepoints_mutex will be taken in tracepoint_probe_register/unregister() there is no need to take bpf_event_mutex too. bpf_event_mutex is protecting modifications to prog array used in kprobe/perf bpf progs. bpf_raw_tracepoints don't need to take this mutex. Fixes: c4f6699dfcb8 ("bpf: introduce BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT") Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit e16ec34039c701594d55d08a5aa49ee3e1abc821 ]

Lockdep found a potential deadlock between cpu_hotplug_lock, bpf_event_mutex, and cpuctx_mutex:
[   13.007000] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[   13.007587] 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477 Not tainted
[   13.008124] ------------------------------------------------------
[   13.008624] test_progs/246 is trying to acquire lock:
[   13.009030] 0000000094160d1d (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}, at: tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.009770]
[   13.009770] but task is already holding lock:
[   13.010239] 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[   13.010877]
[   13.010877] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[   13.010877]
[   13.011532]
[   13.011532] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[   13.012129]
[   13.012129] -> #4 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}:
[   13.012582]        perf_event_query_prog_array+0x9b/0x130
[   13.013016]        _perf_ioctl+0x3aa/0x830
[   13.013354]        perf_ioctl+0x2e/0x50
[   13.013668]        do_vfs_ioctl+0x8f/0x6a0
[   13.014003]        ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80
[   13.014320]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
[   13.014668]        do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[   13.015007]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[   13.015469]
[   13.015469] -> #3 (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+.}:
[   13.015910]        perf_event_init_cpu+0x5a/0x90
[   13.016291]        perf_event_init+0x1b2/0x1de
[   13.016654]        start_kernel+0x2b8/0x42a
[   13.016995]        secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
[   13.017382]
[   13.017382] -> #2 (pmus_lock){+.+.}:
[   13.017794]        perf_event_init_cpu+0x21/0x90
[   13.018172]        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xb3/0x960
[   13.018573]        _cpu_up+0xa7/0x140
[   13.018871]        do_cpu_up+0xa4/0xc0
[   13.019178]        smp_init+0xcd/0xd2
[   13.019483]        kernel_init_freeable+0x123/0x24f
[   13.019878]        kernel_init+0xa/0x110
[   13.020201]        ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
[   13.020541]
[   13.020541] -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
[   13.021051]        static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
[   13.021424]        tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x28c/0x300
[   13.021891]        perf_trace_event_init+0x11f/0x250
[   13.022297]        perf_trace_init+0x6b/0xa0
[   13.022644]        perf_tp_event_init+0x25/0x40
[   13.023011]        perf_try_init_event+0x6b/0x90
[   13.023386]        perf_event_alloc+0x9a8/0xc40
[   13.023754]        __do_sys_perf_event_open+0x1dd/0xd30
[   13.024173]        do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[   13.024519]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[   13.024968]
[   13.024968] -> #0 (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}:
[   13.025434]        __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[   13.025764]        tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.026215]        bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60
[   13.026584]        bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130
[   13.027042]        __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90
[   13.027389]        do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[   13.027727]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[   13.028171]
[   13.028171] other info that might help us debug this:
[   13.028171]
[   13.028807] Chain exists of:
[   13.028807]   tracepoints_mutex --> &cpuctx_mutex --> bpf_event_mutex
[   13.028807]
[   13.029666]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[   13.029666]
[   13.030140]        CPU0                    CPU1
[   13.030510]        ----                    ----
[   13.030875]   lock(bpf_event_mutex);
[   13.031166]                                lock(&cpuctx_mutex);
[   13.031645]                                lock(bpf_event_mutex);
[   13.032135]   lock(tracepoints_mutex);
[   13.032441]
[   13.032441]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[   13.032441]
[   13.032911] 1 lock held by test_progs/246:
[   13.033239]  #0: 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[   13.033909]
[   13.033909] stack backtrace:
[   13.034258] CPU: 1 PID: 246 Comm: test_progs Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477
[   13.034964] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014
[   13.035657] Call Trace:
[   13.035859]  dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b
[   13.036130]  print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x1ce/0x1db
[   13.036526]  __lock_acquire+0x1158/0x1350
[   13.036852]  ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190
[   13.037154]  lock_acquire+0x98/0x190
[   13.037447]  ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.037876]  __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[   13.038167]  ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.038600]  ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.039028]  ? __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[   13.039337]  ? __mutex_lock+0x24a/0x970
[   13.039649]  ? bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[   13.039992]  ? __bpf_trace_sched_wake_idle_without_ipi+0x10/0x10
[   13.040478]  ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.040906]  tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[   13.041325]  bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60
[   13.041649]  bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130
[   13.042068]  ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90
[   13.042374]  __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90
[   13.042678]  do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[   13.042975]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[   13.043382] RIP: 0033:0x7f23b10a07f9
[   13.045155] RSP: 002b:00007ffdef42fdd8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141
[   13.045759] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffdef42ff70 RCX: 00007f23b10a07f9
[   13.046326] RDX: 0000000000000070 RSI: 00007ffdef42fe10 RDI: 0000000000000011
[   13.046893] RBP: 00007ffdef42fdf0 R08: 0000000000000038 R09: 00007ffdef42fe10
[   13.047462] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000000
[   13.048029] R13: 0000000000000016 R14: 00007f23b1db4690 R15: 0000000000000000

Since tracepoints_mutex will be taken in tracepoint_probe_register/unregister()
there is no need to take bpf_event_mutex too.
bpf_event_mutex is protecting modifications to prog array used in kprobe/perf bpf progs.
bpf_raw_tracepoints don't need to take this mutex.

Fixes: c4f6699dfcb8 ("bpf: introduce BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT")
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
bpf: fix check of allowed specifiers in bpf_trace_printk 2018-12-17T08:24:35+00:00 Martynas Pumputis m@lambda.lt 2018-11-23T16:43:26+00:00 6bfebedaa8100b20854fd09820143a3dd5d6539c [ Upstream commit 1efb6ee3edea57f57f9fb05dba8dcb3f7333f61f ] A format string consisting of "%p" or "%s" followed by an invalid specifier (e.g. "%p%\n" or "%s%") could pass the check which would make format_decode (lib/vsprintf.c) to warn. Fixes: 9c959c863f82 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to call bpf_trace_printk()") Reported-by: syzbot+1ec5c5ec949c4adaa0c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Martynas Pumputis <m@lambda.lt> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> 
[ Upstream commit 1efb6ee3edea57f57f9fb05dba8dcb3f7333f61f ]

A format string consisting of "%p" or "%s" followed by an invalid
specifier (e.g. "%p%\n" or "%s%") could pass the check which
would make format_decode (lib/vsprintf.c) to warn.

Fixes: 9c959c863f82 ("tracing: Allow BPF programs to call bpf_trace_printk()")
Reported-by: syzbot+1ec5c5ec949c4adaa0c4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Martynas Pumputis <m@lambda.lt>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
tracing: Add SPDX License format to bpf_trace.c 2018-08-16T23:07:36+00:00 Steven Rostedt (VMware) rostedt@goodmis.org 2018-08-16T15:20:54+00:00 179a0cc4e0e14216b3c46b5538436532cb9ed39a Add the SPDX License header to ease license compliance management. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> 
Add the SPDX License header to ease license compliance management.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
bpf: guard bpf_get_current_cgroup_id() with CONFIG_CGROUPS 2018-06-04T19:52:26+00:00 Yonghong Song yhs@fb.com 2018-06-04T15:53:41+00:00 34ea38ca27991466a8fff849514b4181b42ae2eb Commit bf6fa2c893c5 ("bpf: implement bpf_get_current_cgroup_id() helper") introduced a new helper bpf_get_current_cgroup_id(). The helper has a dependency on CONFIG_CGROUPS. When CONFIG_CGROUPS is not defined, using the helper will result the following verifier error: kernel subsystem misconfigured func bpf_get_current_cgroup_id#80 which is hard for users to interpret. Guarding the reference to bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto with CONFIG_CGROUPS will result in below better message: unknown func bpf_get_current_cgroup_id#80 Fixes: bf6fa2c893c5 ("bpf: implement bpf_get_current_cgroup_id() helper") Suggested-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> 
Commit bf6fa2c893c5 ("bpf: implement bpf_get_current_cgroup_id()
helper") introduced a new helper bpf_get_current_cgroup_id().
The helper has a dependency on CONFIG_CGROUPS.

When CONFIG_CGROUPS is not defined, using the helper will result
the following verifier error:
  kernel subsystem misconfigured func bpf_get_current_cgroup_id#80
which is hard for users to interpret.
Guarding the reference to bpf_get_current_cgroup_id_proto with
CONFIG_CGROUPS will result in below better message:
  unknown func bpf_get_current_cgroup_id#80

Fixes: bf6fa2c893c5 ("bpf: implement bpf_get_current_cgroup_id() helper")
Suggested-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
bpf: implement bpf_get_current_cgroup_id() helper 2018-06-04T01:22:41+00:00 Yonghong Song yhs@fb.com 2018-06-03T22:59:41+00:00 bf6fa2c893c5237b48569a13fa3c673041430b6c bpf has been used extensively for tracing. For example, bcc contains an almost full set of bpf-based tools to trace kernel and user functions/events. Most tracing tools are currently either filtered based on pid or system-wide. Containers have been used quite extensively in industry and cgroup is often used together to provide resource isolation and protection. Several processes may run inside the same container. It is often desirable to get container-level tracing results as well, e.g. syscall count, function count, I/O activity, etc. This patch implements a new helper, bpf_get_current_cgroup_id(), which will return cgroup id based on the cgroup within which the current task is running. The later patch will provide an example to show that userspace can get the same cgroup id so it could configure a filter or policy in the bpf program based on task cgroup id. The helper is currently implemented for tracing. It can be added to other program types as well when needed. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> 
bpf has been used extensively for tracing. For example, bcc
contains an almost full set of bpf-based tools to trace kernel
and user functions/events. Most tracing tools are currently
either filtered based on pid or system-wide.

Containers have been used quite extensively in industry and
cgroup is often used together to provide resource isolation
and protection. Several processes may run inside the same
container. It is often desirable to get container-level tracing
results as well, e.g. syscall count, function count, I/O
activity, etc.

This patch implements a new helper, bpf_get_current_cgroup_id(),
which will return cgroup id based on the cgroup within which
the current task is running.

The later patch will provide an example to show that
userspace can get the same cgroup id so it could
configure a filter or policy in the bpf program based on
task cgroup id.

The helper is currently implemented for tracing. It can
be added to other program types as well when needed.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
bpf: fix context access in tracing progs on 32 bit archs 2018-06-03T14:46:56+00:00 Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net 2018-06-02T21:06:39+00:00 bc23105ca0abdeed98366af01c700c2c3aff5cd5 Wang reported that all the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in test_verifier report the following errors on x86_32: 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL Unexpected error message! 0: (bf) r6 = r10 1: (07) r6 += -8 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 3: (bf) r2 = r10 4: (07) r2 += -76 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0) 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68) invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'! 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68) invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'! 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68) invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'! 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68) invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'! 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68) invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8 Reason is that struct pt_regs on x86_32 doesn't fully align to 8 byte boundary due to its size of 68 bytes. Therefore, bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok() will then bail out saying that off & (size_default - 1) which is 68 & 7 doesn't cleanly align in the case of sample_period access from struct bpf_perf_event_data, hence verifier wrongly thinks we might be doing an unaligned access here though underlying arch can handle it just fine. Therefore adjust this down to machine size and check and rewrite the offset for narrow access on that basis. We also need to fix corresponding pe_prog_is_valid_access(), since we hit the check for off % size != 0 (e.g. 68 % 8 -> 4) in the first and last test. With that in place, progs for tracing work on x86_32. Reported-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Tested-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> 
Wang reported that all the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT
program type in test_verifier report the following errors on x86_32:

  172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
  Unexpected error message!
  0: (bf) r6 = r10
  1: (07) r6 += -8
  2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
  R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
  3: (bf) r2 = r10
  4: (07) r2 += -76
  5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
  6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
  R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
  7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
  8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
  9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
  invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8

  378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
  Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
  invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1

  379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
  Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
  invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2

  380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
  Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
  invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4

  381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
  Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
  invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8

Reason is that struct pt_regs on x86_32 doesn't fully align to 8 byte
boundary due to its size of 68 bytes. Therefore, bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok()
will then bail out saying that off & (size_default - 1) which is 68 & 7
doesn't cleanly align in the case of sample_period access from struct
bpf_perf_event_data, hence verifier wrongly thinks we might be doing an
unaligned access here though underlying arch can handle it just fine.
Therefore adjust this down to machine size and check and rewrite the
offset for narrow access on that basis. We also need to fix corresponding
pe_prog_is_valid_access(), since we hit the check for off % size != 0
(e.g. 68 % 8 -> 4) in the first and last test. With that in place, progs
for tracing work on x86_32.

Reported-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
bpf: bpf_prog_array_copy() should return -ENOENT if exclude_prog not found 2018-05-30T10:37:38+00:00 Sean Young sean@mess.org 2018-05-27T11:24:08+00:00 170a7e3ea0709eae12c8f944b9f33c54fe80c6c1 This makes is it possible for bpf prog detach to return -ENOENT. Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> 
This makes is it possible for bpf prog detach to return -ENOENT.

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>