Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 12:12:13AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

Hi Josef,

one more issue I just noticed, see comment below:

On 11/02/2017 03:37 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
[...]

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index cdd78a7beaae..dfa44fd74bae 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h

@@ -458,7 +458,8 @@ struct bpf_prog {
  				locked:1,	/* Program image locked? */
  				gpl_compatible:1, /* Is filter GPL compatible? */
  				cb_access:1,	/* Is control block accessed? */
-				dst_needed:1;	/* Do we need dst entry? */
+				dst_needed:1,	/* Do we need dst entry? */
+				kprobe_override:1; /* Do we override a kprobe? */
  	kmemcheck_bitfield_end(meta);
  	enum bpf_prog_type	type;		/* Type of BPF program */
  	u32			len;		/* Number of filter blocks */

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d906775e12c1..f8f7927a9152 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -4189,6 +4189,8 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
  			prog->dst_needed = 1;
  		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32)
  			bpf_user_rnd_init_once();
+		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_override_return)
+			prog->kprobe_override = 1;
  		if (insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) {
  			/* If we tail call into other programs, we
  			 * cannot make any assumptions since they can

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 9660ee65fbef..0d7fce52391d 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c

@@ -8169,6 +8169,13 @@ static int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, u32 prog_fd)
  		return -EINVAL;
  	}

+	/* Kprobe override only works for kprobes, not uprobes. */
+	if (prog->kprobe_override &&
+	    !(event->tp_event->flags & TRACE_EVENT_FL_KPROBE)) {
+		bpf_prog_put(prog);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}

Can we somehow avoid the prog->kprobe_override flag here completely
and also same in the perf_event_attach_bpf_prog() handler?

Reason is that it's not reliable for bailing out this way: Think of
the main program you're attaching doesn't use bpf_override_return()
helper, but it tail-calls into other BPF progs that make use of it
instead. So above check would be useless and will fail and we continue
to attach the prog for probes where it's not intended to be used.

We've had similar issues in the past e.g. c2002f983767 ("bpf: fix
checking xdp_adjust_head on tail calls") is just one of those. Thus,
can we avoid the flag altogether and handle such error case differently?

So if I'm reading this right there's no way to know what we'll tail call at any
given point, so I need to go back to my previous iteration of this patch and
always save the state of the kprobe in the per-cpu variable to make sure we
don't use bpf_override_return in the wrong case?

The tail call functions won't be in the BPF_PROG_ARRAY right?  It'll be just
some other arbitrary function?  If that's the case then we really need something
like this

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10034815/

and I need to bring that back right?  Thanks,

Josef