Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: introduce helper bpf_find_vma
From: Song Liu <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-05 21:13:13
Also in:
bpf
On Nov 5, 2021, at 8:23 AM, Hengqi Chen [off-list ref] wrote: Hi, Song On 2021/11/5 5:31 AM, Song Liu wrote:quoted
In some profiler use cases, it is necessary to map an address to the backing file, e.g., a shared library. bpf_find_vma helper provides a flexible way to achieve this. bpf_find_vma maps an address of a task to the vma (vm_area_struct) for this address, and feed the vma to an callback BPF function. The callback function is necessary here, as we need to ensure mmap_sem is unlocked. It is necessary to lock mmap_sem for find_vma. To lock and unlock mmap_sem safely when irqs are disable, we use the same mechanism as stackmap with build_id. Specifically, when irqs are disabled, the unlocked is postponed in an irq_work. Refactor stackmap.c so that the irq_work is shared among bpf_find_vma and stackmap helpers. Reported-by: kernel test robot <redacted> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <redacted> ---[...]quoted
-BTF_ID_LIST(btf_task_file_ids) -BTF_ID(struct, file) -BTF_ID(struct, vm_area_struct) - static const struct bpf_iter_seq_info task_seq_info = { .seq_ops = &task_seq_ops, .init_seq_private = init_seq_pidns,@@ -586,9 +583,74 @@ static struct bpf_iter_reg task_vma_reg_info = {.seq_info = &task_vma_seq_info, }; +BPF_CALL_5(bpf_find_vma, struct task_struct *, task, u64, start, + bpf_callback_t, callback_fn, void *, callback_ctx, u64, flags) +{ + struct mmap_unlock_irq_work *work = NULL; + struct vm_area_struct *vma; + bool irq_work_busy = false; + struct mm_struct *mm; + int ret = -ENOENT; + + if (flags) + return -EINVAL; + + if (!task) + return -ENOENT; + + mm = task->mm; + if (!mm) + return -ENOENT; + + irq_work_busy = bpf_mmap_unlock_get_irq_work(&work); + + if (irq_work_busy || !mmap_read_trylock(mm)) + return -EBUSY; + + vma = find_vma(mm, start); +I found that when a BPF program attach to security_file_open which is in the bpf_d_path helper's allowlist, the bpf_d_path helper is also allowed to be called inside the callback function. So we can have this in callback function: bpf_d_path(&vma->vm_file->f_path, path, sizeof(path)); I wonder whether there is a guarantee that vma->vm_file will never be null, as you said in the commit message, a backing file.
I don't think we can guarantee vma->vm_file never be NULL here, so this is a real problem. Let me see how to fix it. Thanks for finding this case! Song