include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 15 +++++++++++++-- kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 16 +++++++++------- samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 2 +- samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c | 14 +++++++------- 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
The kernel is globally removing the ambiguous 0-length and 1-element
arrays in favor of flexible arrays, so that we can gain both compile-time
and run-time array bounds checking[1]. Most cases of these changes are
trivial, but this case in BPF is not. It faces some difficulties:
1) struct bpf_lpm_trie_key is part of UAPI so changes can be fragile in
the sense that projects external to Linux may be impacted.
2) The struct is intended to be used as a header, which means it may
be within another structure, resulting in the "data" array member
overlapping with the surrounding structure's following members. When
converting from [0]-style to []-style, this overlap elicits warnings
under Clang, and GCC considers it a deprecated extension (and similarly
warns under -pedantic): https://godbolt.org/z/vWzqs41h6
3) Both the kernel and userspace access the existing "data" member
for more than just static initializers and offsetof() calculations.
For example:
cilium:
struct egress_gw_policy_key in_key = {
.lpm_key = { 32 + 24, {} },
.saddr = CLIENT_IP,
.daddr = EXTERNAL_SVC_IP & 0Xffffff,
};
systemd:
ipv6_map_fd = bpf_map_new(
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE,
offsetof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, data) + sizeof(uint32_t)*4,
sizeof(uint64_t), ...);
...
struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_ipv4, *key_ipv6;
...
memcpy(key_ipv4->data, &a->address, sizeof(uint32_t));
Searching for other uses in Debian Code Search seem to be just copies
of UAPI headers:
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=struct+bpf_lpm_trie_key&literal=1&perpkg=1
Introduce struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for the kernel (and future userspace)
to use for walking the individual bytes following the header, and leave
the "data" member of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is (i.e. a [0]-style
array). This will allow existing userspace code to continue to use "data"
as a fake flexible array. The kernel (and future userspace code) building
with -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 will see struct bpf_lpm_trie_key::data has
having 0 bytes so there will be no overlap warnings, and can instead
use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8::data for accessing the actual byte
array contents. The definition of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 uses a
union with struct bpf_lpm_trie_key so that things like container_of()
can be used instead of doing explicit casting, all while leaving the
member names un-namespaced (i.e. key->prefixlen == key_u8->prefixlen,
key->data == key_u8->data), allowing for trivial drop-in replacement
without collateral member renaming.
This will avoid structure overlap warnings and array bounds warnings
while enabling run-time array bounds checking under CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS=y
and -fstrict-flex-arrays=3.
For reference, the current warning under GCC 13 with -fstrict-flex-arrays=3
and -Warray-bounds is:
../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
207 | *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
| ^
../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
206 | u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
^
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
82 | __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
| ^~~~
Additionally update the samples and selftests to use the new structure,
for demonstrating best practices.
[1] For lots of details, see both:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
https://people.kernel.org/kees/bounded-flexible-arrays-in-c
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Cc: Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Haowen Bai <baihaowen@meizu.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 16 +++++++++-------
samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 2 +-
samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c | 14 +++++++-------
5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index ba0f0cfb5e42..f843a7582456 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -76,10 +76,21 @@ struct bpf_insn {
__s32 imm; /* signed immediate constant */
};
-/* Key of an a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
+/* Header for a key of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
struct bpf_lpm_trie_key {
__u32 prefixlen; /* up to 32 for AF_INET, 128 for AF_INET6 */
- __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
+ __u8 data[0]; /* Deprecated field: use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 */
+};
+
+/* Raw (u8 byte array) key of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
+struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 {
+ union {
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key hdr;
+ struct {
+ __u32 prefixlen;
+ __u8 data[];
+ };
+ };
};
struct bpf_cgroup_storage_key {
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
index d833496e9e42..3a93ace62c87 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
@@ -164,13 +164,15 @@ static inline int extract_bit(const u8 *data, size_t index)
*/
static size_t longest_prefix_match(const struct lpm_trie *trie,
const struct lpm_trie_node *node,
- const struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key)
+ const struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key)
{
u32 limit = min(node->prefixlen, key->prefixlen);
u32 prefixlen = 0, i = 0;
- BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct lpm_trie_node, data) % sizeof(u32));
- BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, data) % sizeof(u32));
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(typeof(*node), data) % sizeof(u32));
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(typeof(*key), data) % sizeof(u32));
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(typeof(*key), data) !=
+ offsetof(typeof(key->hdr), data));
#if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT)
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@ static void *trie_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *_key)
{
struct lpm_trie *trie = container_of(map, struct lpm_trie, map);
struct lpm_trie_node *node, *found = NULL;
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key = _key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key = _key;
/* Start walking the trie from the root node ... */
@@ -306,7 +308,7 @@ static int trie_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map,
struct lpm_trie *trie = container_of(map, struct lpm_trie, map);
struct lpm_trie_node *node, *im_node = NULL, *new_node = NULL;
struct lpm_trie_node __rcu **slot;
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key = _key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key = _key;
unsigned long irq_flags;
unsigned int next_bit;
size_t matchlen = 0;
@@ -434,7 +436,7 @@ static int trie_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map,
static int trie_delete_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *_key)
{
struct lpm_trie *trie = container_of(map, struct lpm_trie, map);
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key = _key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key = _key;
struct lpm_trie_node __rcu **trim, **trim2;
struct lpm_trie_node *node, *parent;
unsigned long irq_flags;
@@ -616,7 +618,7 @@ static int trie_get_next_key(struct bpf_map *map, void *_key, void *_next_key)
{
struct lpm_trie_node *node, *next_node = NULL, *parent, *search_root;
struct lpm_trie *trie = container_of(map, struct lpm_trie, map);
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key = _key, *next_key = _next_key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key = _key, *next_key = _next_key;
struct lpm_trie_node **node_stack = NULL;
int err = 0, stack_ptr = -1;
unsigned int next_bit;
diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
index d2fbcf963cdf..07ff471ed6ae 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c
@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ static void run_perf_test(int tasks)
static void fill_lpm_trie(void)
{
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key;
unsigned long value = 0;
unsigned int i;
int r;
diff --git a/samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c b/samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c
index 9d41db09c480..266fdd0b025d 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c
+++ b/samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int recv_msg(struct sockaddr_nl sock_addr, int sock)
static void read_route(struct nlmsghdr *nh, int nll)
{
char dsts[24], gws[24], ifs[16], dsts_len[24], metrics[24];
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *prefix_key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *prefix_key;
struct rtattr *rt_attr;
struct rtmsg *rt_msg;
int rtm_family;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c
index c028d621c744..e2e822759e13 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static void test_lpm_map(int keysize)
volatile size_t n_matches, n_matches_after_delete;
size_t i, j, n_nodes, n_lookups;
struct tlpm_node *t, *list = NULL;
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key;
uint8_t *data, *value;
int r, map;
@@ -331,8 +331,8 @@ static void test_lpm_map(int keysize)
static void test_lpm_ipaddr(void)
{
LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_create_opts, opts, .map_flags = BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_ipv4;
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_ipv6;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key_ipv4;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key_ipv6;
size_t key_size_ipv4;
size_t key_size_ipv6;
int map_fd_ipv4;
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static void test_lpm_ipaddr(void)
static void test_lpm_delete(void)
{
LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_create_opts, opts, .map_flags = BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key;
size_t key_size;
int map_fd;
__u64 value;
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ static void test_lpm_delete(void)
static void test_lpm_get_next_key(void)
{
LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_create_opts, opts, .map_flags = BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_p, *next_key_p;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key_p, *next_key_p;
size_t key_size;
__u32 value = 0;
int map_fd;
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ static void *lpm_test_command(void *arg)
{
int i, j, ret, iter, key_size;
struct lpm_mt_test_info *info = arg;
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_p;
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *key_p;
key_size = sizeof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key) + sizeof(__u32);
key_p = alloca(key_size);
@@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ static void *lpm_test_command(void *arg)
ret = bpf_map_lookup_elem(info->map_fd, key_p, &value);
assert(ret == 0 || errno == ENOENT);
} else {
- struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *next_key_p = alloca(key_size);
+ struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 *next_key_p = alloca(key_size);
ret = bpf_map_get_next_key(info->map_fd, key_p, next_key_p);
assert(ret == 0 || errno == ENOENT || errno == ENOMEM);
}
--
2.34.1On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:23 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> The kernel is globally removing the ambiguous 0-length and 1-element
> arrays in favor of flexible arrays, so that we can gain both compile-time
> and run-time array bounds checking[1]. Most cases of these changes are
> trivial, but this case in BPF is not. It faces some difficulties:
>
> 1) struct bpf_lpm_trie_key is part of UAPI so changes can be fragile in
> the sense that projects external to Linux may be impacted.
>
> 2) The struct is intended to be used as a header, which means it may
> be within another structure, resulting in the "data" array member
> overlapping with the surrounding structure's following members. When
> converting from [0]-style to []-style, this overlap elicits warnings
> under Clang, and GCC considers it a deprecated extension (and similarly
> warns under -pedantic): https://godbolt.org/z/vWzqs41h6
>
> 3) Both the kernel and userspace access the existing "data" member
> for more than just static initializers and offsetof() calculations.
> For example:
>
> cilium:
> struct egress_gw_policy_key in_key = {
> .lpm_key = { 32 + 24, {} },
> .saddr = CLIENT_IP,
> .daddr = EXTERNAL_SVC_IP & 0Xffffff,
> };
>
> systemd:
> ipv6_map_fd = bpf_map_new(
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE,
> offsetof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key, data) + sizeof(uint32_t)*4,
> sizeof(uint64_t), ...);
> ...
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key_ipv4, *key_ipv6;
> ...
> memcpy(key_ipv4->data, &a->address, sizeof(uint32_t));
>
> Searching for other uses in Debian Code Search seem to be just copies
> of UAPI headers:
> https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=struct+bpf_lpm_trie_key&literal=1&perpkg=1
>
> Introduce struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for the kernel (and future userspace)
> to use for walking the individual bytes following the header, and leave
> the "data" member of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is (i.e. a [0]-style
> array). This will allow existing userspace code to continue to use "data"
> as a fake flexible array. The kernel (and future userspace code) building
> with -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 will see struct bpf_lpm_trie_key::data has
> having 0 bytes so there will be no overlap warnings, and can instead
> use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8::data for accessing the actual byte
> array contents. The definition of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 uses a
> union with struct bpf_lpm_trie_key so that things like container_of()
> can be used instead of doing explicit casting, all while leaving the
> member names un-namespaced (i.e. key->prefixlen == key_u8->prefixlen,
> key->data == key_u8->data), allowing for trivial drop-in replacement
> without collateral member renaming.
>
> This will avoid structure overlap warnings and array bounds warnings
> while enabling run-time array bounds checking under CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS=y
> and -fstrict-flex-arrays=3.
>
> For reference, the current warning under GCC 13 with -fstrict-flex-arrays=3
> and -Warray-bounds is:
>
> ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
> 207 | *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
> 102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
> | ^
> ../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
> 97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
> 206 | u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
> ^
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
> ../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
> 82 | __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> | ^~~~
>
> Additionally update the samples and selftests to use the new structure,
> for demonstrating best practices.
>
> [1] For lots of details, see both:
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
> https://people.kernel.org/kees/bounded-flexible-arrays-in-c
>
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
> Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
> Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
> Cc: Haowen Bai <baihaowen@meizu.com>
> Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
> kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 2 +-
> samples/bpf/xdp_router_ipv4_user.c | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index ba0f0cfb5e42..f843a7582456 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -76,10 +76,21 @@ struct bpf_insn {
> __s32 imm; /* signed immediate constant */
> };
>
> -/* Key of an a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
> +/* Header for a key of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key {
> __u32 prefixlen; /* up to 32 for AF_INET, 128 for AF_INET6 */
> - __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> + __u8 data[0]; /* Deprecated field: use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 */
> +};
> +
> +/* Raw (u8 byte array) key of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
> +struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 {
> + union {
> + struct bpf_lpm_trie_key hdr;
> + struct {
> + __u32 prefixlen;
> + __u8 data[];
> + };
> + };
> };
Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
__u32 prefixlen as first member).
This whole union work-around seems like just extra cruft that we don't
really need in UAPI.
Or did I miss anything?
[...]
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key. > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have > __u32 prefixlen as first member). The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g. systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features). > This whole union work-around seems like just extra cruft that we don't > really need in UAPI. The union is really only there so that possible uses of container_of() would be happy. But I did add a BUILD_BUG_ON() test for member offset equality, so a hard cast would be safe too. I'm happy to drop it if that's preferred? -- Kees Cook
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
> > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
> > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
> > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
> > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
> > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
>
> The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
> struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
> when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
> systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).
I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.
Can we do just
struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
__u32 prefixlen;
__u8 data[];
};
and use it in the kernel?
What is the disadvantage?
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:50:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
> > > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
> > > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
> > > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
> > > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
> > > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
> >
> > The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
> > struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
> > when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
> > systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).
>
> I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
> cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
> cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
> They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.
Right -- I'm proposing not changing bpf_lpm_trie_key. I'm proposing
_adding_ bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for new users who will be using modern
compiler options (i.e. where "data[0]" is nonsense).
> Can we do just
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
> __u32 prefixlen;
> __u8 data[];
> };
> and use it in the kernel?
Yeah, I can do that if that's preferred, but it leaves userspace hanging
when they eventually trip over this in their code when they enable
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 too.
> What is the disadvantage?
It seemed better to give a working example of how to migrate this code.
Regardless, I can just make this specific to the kernel code if that's
what's wanted.
--
Kees Cook
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 1:12 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:50:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
> > > > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
> > > > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > > > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
> > > > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
> > > > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
> > > > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
> > >
> > > The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
> > > struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
> > > when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
> > > systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).
> >
> > I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
> > cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
> > cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
> > They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.
>
> Right -- I'm proposing not changing bpf_lpm_trie_key. I'm proposing
> _adding_ bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for new users who will be using modern
> compiler options (i.e. where "data[0]" is nonsense).
>
> > Can we do just
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
> > __u32 prefixlen;
> > __u8 data[];
> > };
> > and use it in the kernel?
>
> Yeah, I can do that if that's preferred, but it leaves userspace hanging
> when they eventually trip over this in their code when they enable
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 too.
>
> > What is the disadvantage?
>
> It seemed better to give a working example of how to migrate this code.
I understand and agree with intent, but I'm still missing
how you're going to achieve this migration.
bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 doesn't provide a migration path to cilium progs
and pretty much all bpf progs that use LPM map.
Sure, one can change the user space part, like you did in test_lpm_map.c,
but it doesn't address the full scope.
imo half way is worse than not doing it.
On February 9, 2023 2:01:15 PM PST, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 1:12 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:50:28PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> > > > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
>> > > > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
>> > > > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
>> > > > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
>> > > > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
>> > > > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
>> > > > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
>> > >
>> > > The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
>> > > struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
>> > > when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
>> > > systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).
>> >
>> > I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
>> > cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
>> > cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
>> > They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.
>>
>> Right -- I'm proposing not changing bpf_lpm_trie_key. I'm proposing
>> _adding_ bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 for new users who will be using modern
>> compiler options (i.e. where "data[0]" is nonsense).
>>
>> > Can we do just
>> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
>> > __u32 prefixlen;
>> > __u8 data[];
>> > };
>> > and use it in the kernel?
>>
>> Yeah, I can do that if that's preferred, but it leaves userspace hanging
>> when they eventually trip over this in their code when they enable
>> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 too.
>>
>> > What is the disadvantage?
>>
>> It seemed better to give a working example of how to migrate this code.
>
>I understand and agree with intent, but I'm still missing
>how you're going to achieve this migration.
>bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 doesn't provide a migration path to cilium progs
>and pretty much all bpf progs that use LPM map.
>Sure, one can change the user space part, like you did in test_lpm_map.c,
>but it doesn't address the full scope.
>imo half way is worse than not doing it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a program isn't building with -fstrict-flex-arrays=3, it can keep on using struct bpf_lpm_trie_key as before. If/when it starts using -fsfa, if can use struct bpf_lpm_trie_key in composite structs as a header just like before, but if it has places using the "data" member as an array of u8, it can switch to something using struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8, either directly or as a union with whatever ever struct they have. (And this replacement is what I did for all the samples/selftests.)
--
Kees Cook
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.