netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 06 Jun 2017 12:19:39 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko

On 05/31/2017 08:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 5/31/17 11:43 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>> Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:39:37 -0700
>>
>>> On 5/31/17 11:15 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:31:32 -0700
>>>>
>>>>> test_bpf.ko doesn't call verifier before selecting interpreter or
>>>>> JITing,
>>>>> hence the tests need to manually specify the amount of stack they
>>>>> consume.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>>
>>>> I do not like this and the previous patch, it seems so error prone.
>>>
>>> in what sense 'error prone' ?
>>
>> In the sense that a human computes these numbers, and nothing checks
>> if it is correct or not until program perhaps crashes if the value is
>> wrong.
>
> right. that's how all these tests are.
> See bpf_fill_ld_abs_vlan_push_pop() for example.
> If that codegen has a bug, it will crash the kernel.
> That's why it's done from kernel module to do things
> that user space cannot do.

Would probably have been easier to just default the tests to use
MAX_BPF_STACK if nothing further is specified, but I think it may
still be useful to test JIT implementations supporting this for
the non-default cases.