Re: [PATCH] bpf: restore the ebpf audit UNLOAD id field

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:19 PM <sdf(a)google.com&gt; wrote: > > On 12/21, Paul Moore wrote: > > > When changing the ebpf program put() routines to support being called > > > from within IRQ context the program ID was reset to zero prior to > > > generating the audit UNLOAD record, which obviously rendered the ID > > > field bogus (always zero). This patch resolves this by adding a new > > > field, bpf_prog_aux::id_audit, which is set when the ebpf program is > > > allocated an ID and never reset, ensuring a valid ID field, > > > regardless of the state of the original ID field, bpf_prox_aud::id. > > > > > I also modified the bpf_audit_prog() logic used to associate the > > > AUDIT_BPF record with other associated records, e.g. @ctx != NULL. > > > Instead of keying off the operation, it now keys off the execution > > > context, e.g. '!in_irg && !irqs_disabled()', which is much more > > > appropriate and should help better connect the UNLOAD operations with > > > the associated audit state (other audit records). > > > > [..] > > > > > As an note to future bug hunters, I did briefly consider removing the > > > ID reset in bpf_prog_free_id(), as it would seem that once the > > > program is removed from the idr pool it can no longer be found by its > > > ID value, but commit ad8ad79f4f60 ("bpf: offload: free program id > > > when device disappears") seems to imply that it is beneficial to > > > reset the ID value. Perhaps as a secondary indicator that the ebpf > > > program is unbound/orphaned. > > > > That seems like the way to go imho. Can we have some extra 'invalid_id' > > bitfield in the bpf_prog so we can set it in bpf_prog_free_id and > > check in bpf_prog_free_id (for this offloaded use-case)? Because > > having two ids and then keeping track about which one to use, depending > > on the context, seems more fragile? > > I would definitely prefer to keep just a single ID value, and that was > the first approach I took when drafting this patch, but when looking > through the git log it looked like there was some desire to reset the > ID to zero on free. Not being an expert on the ebpf kernel code I > figured I would just write the patch up this way and make a comment > about not zero'ing out the ID in the commit description so we could > have a discussion about it. > > I'm not seeing any other comments, so I'll go ahead with putting > together a v2 that sets an invalid flag/bit and I'll post that for > further discussion/review. great, perf suffers the same issue: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/Y3SRWVoycV290S16@krava/ any chance you could include it as well? I can send a patch later if needed