Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/3] Support storing struct task_struct objects as kptrs

[John Fastabend]

Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:08:12AM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:04:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > > And last thing I was checking is because KF_SLEEPABLE is not set
> > > > > this should be blocked from running on sleepable progs which would
> > > > > break the call_rcu in the destructor. Maybe small nit, not sure
> > > > > its worth it but might be nice to annotate the helper description
> > > > > with a note, "will not work on sleepable progs" or something to
> > > > > that effect.
> > > > 
> > > > KF_SLEEPABLE is used to indicate whether the kfunc _itself_ may sleep,
> > > > not whether the calling program can be sleepable. call_rcu() doesn't
> > > > block, so no need to mark the kfunc as KF_SLEEPABLE. The key is that if
> > > > a kfunc is sleepable, non-sleepable programs are not able to call it
> > > > (and this is enforced in the verifier).
> > > 
> > > OK but should these helpers be allowed in sleepable progs? I think
> > > not. What stops this, (using your helpers):
> > > 
> > >   cpu0                                       cpu1
> > >   ----
> > >   v = insert_lookup_task(task)
> > >   kptr = bpf_kptr_xchg(&v->task, NULL);
> > >   if (!kptr)
> > >     return 0;
> > >                                             map_delete_elem()
> > >                                                put_task()
> > >                                                  rcu_call
> > >   do_something_might_sleep()
> > >                                                     put_task_struct
> > >                                                       ... free  
> 
> the free won't happen here, because the kptr on cpu0 holds the refcnt.
> bpf side never does direct free of kptr. It only inc/dec refcnt via kfuncs.
> 
> > >   kptr->[free'd memory]
> > >  
> > > the insert_lookup_task will bump the refcnt on the acquire on map
> > > insert. But the lookup doesn't do anything to the refcnt and the
> 
> lookup from map doesn't touch kptrs in the value.
> just reading v->kptr becomes PTR_UNTRUSTED with probe_mem protection.
> 
> > > map_delete_elem will delete it. We have a check for spin_lock
> > > types to stop them from being in sleepable progs. Did I miss a
> > > similar check for these?
> > 
> > So, in your example above, bpf_kptr_xchg(&v->task, NULL) will atomically
> > xchg the kptr from the map, and so the map_delete_elem() call would fail
> > with (something like) -ENOENT. In general, the semantics are similar to
> > std::unique_ptr::swap() in C++.
> > 
> > FWIW, I think KF_KPTR_GET kfuncs are the more complex / racy kfuncs to
> > reason about. The reason is that we're passing a pointer to the map
> > value containing a kptr directly to the kfunc (with the attempt of
> > acquiring an additional reference if a kptr was already present in the
> > map) rather than doing an xchg which atomically gets us the unique
> > pointer if nobody else xchgs it in first. So with KF_KPTR_GET, someone
> > else could come along and delete the kptr from the map while the kfunc
> > is trying to acquire that additional reference. The race looks something
> > like this:
> > 
> >    cpu0                                       cpu1
> >    ----
> >    v = insert_lookup_task(task)
> >    kptr = bpf_task_kptr_get(&v->task);
> >                                              map_delete_elem()
> >                                                 put_task()
> >                                                   rcu_call
> >                                                      put_task_struct
> >                                                        ... free  
> >    if (!kptr)
> >      /* In this race example, this path will be taken. */
> >      return 0;
> > 
> > The difference is that here, we're not doing an atomic xchg of the kptr
> > out of the map. Instead, we're passing a pointer to the map value
> > containing the kptr directly to bpf_task_kptr_get(), which itself tries
> > to acquire an additional reference on the task to return to the program
> > as a kptr. This is still safe, however, as bpf_task_kptr_get() uses RCU
> > and refcount_inc_not_zero() in the bpf_task_kptr_get() kfunc to ensure
> > that it can't hit a UAF, and that it won't return a dying task to the
> > caller:
> > 
> > /**
> >  * bpf_task_kptr_get - Acquire a reference on a struct task_struct kptr. A task
> >  * kptr acquired by this kfunc which is not subsequently stored in a map, must
> >  * be released by calling bpf_task_release().
> >  * @pp: A pointer to a task kptr on which a reference is being acquired.
> >  */
> > __used noinline
> > struct task_struct *bpf_task_kptr_get(struct task_struct **pp)
> > {
> >         struct task_struct *p;
> > 
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         p = READ_ONCE(*pp);
> > 
> > 	/* <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > 	 * cpu1 could remove the element from the map here, and invoke
> > 	 * put_task_struct_rcu_user(). We're in an RCU read region
> > 	 * though, so the task won't be freed until at the very
> > 	 * earliest, the rcu_read_unlock() below.
> > 	 * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 	 */
> > 
> >         if (p && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&p->rcu_users))
> > 		/* <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > 		 * refcount_inc_not_zero() will return false, as cpu1
> > 		 * deleted the element from the map and dropped its last
> > 		 * refcount. So we just return NULL as the task will be
> > 		 * deleted once an RCU gp has elapsed.
> > 		 * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 		 */
> >                 p = NULL;
> >         rcu_read_unlock();
> > 
> >         return p;
> > }
> > 
> > Let me know if that makes sense. This stuff is tricky, and I plan to
> > clearly / thoroughly add it to that kptr docs page once this patch set
> > lands.
> 
> All correct. Probably worth adding this comment directly in bpf_task_kptr_get.

Yes also agree thanks for the details. Spent sometime trying to break
it this event, but didn't find anything.

Thanks.