Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing, bpf: Implement function bpf_probe_write
From: Alexei Starovoitov <hidden>
Date: 2016-07-19 06:14:02
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:57:17AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:quoted
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 03:19:13AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:quoted
+static u64 bpf_copy_to_user(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5) +{ + void *to = (void *) (long) r1; + void *from = (void *) (long) r2; + int size = (int) r3; + + /* check if we're in a user context */ + if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) + return -EINVAL; + if (unlikely(!current->pid)) + return -EINVAL; + + return copy_to_user(to, from, size); +}thanks for the patch, unfortunately it's not that straightforward. copy_to_user might fault. Try enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP and you'll see the splat since bpf programs are protected by rcu. Also 'current' can be null and I'm not sure what current->pid does. So the writing to user memory either has to be verified to avoid sleeping and faults or we need to use something like task_work_add mechanism. Ideas are certainly welcome.From casual inspection, I can't find where current can be null when in_interrupt() is false. Although, we can check before dereferencing it. When not in a user context, the pid of the task struct returns 0. As far as preventing sleep, would the following alteration do? Or do we actually need something more sophisticated?diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index be89c148..45878f3 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c@@ -86,14 +86,19 @@ static u64 bpf_copy_to_user(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64r4, u64 r5) void *to = (void *) (long) r1; void *from = (void *) (long) r2; int size = (int) r3; + struct task_struct *task = current; /* check if we're in a user context */ if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) return -EINVAL; - if (unlikely(!current->pid)) + if (unlikely(!task || !task->pid)) return -EINVAL; - return copy_to_user(to, from, size); + /* Is this a user address, or a kernel address? */ + if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, to, size)) + return -EINVAL; + + return probe_kernel_write(to, from, size); }
I think it can actually work. The only concern is that comment in access_ok() says that it may sleep whereas I couldn't find any arch where that would be the case. Could you please send an official patch with detailed commit log?