netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF

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

Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:40:31 -0700
From:   Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: improve disassembly of BPF_END instructions

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com> wrote:
> On 21/09/17 16:52, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:09:34PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> print_bpf_insn() was treating all BPF_ALU[64] the same, but BPF_END has a
>>>  different structure: it has a size in insn->imm (even if it's BPF_X) and
>>>  uses the BPF_SRC (X or K) to indicate which endianness to use.  So it
>>>  needs different code to print it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
>>> ---
>>> It's not the same format as the new LLVM asm uses, does that matter?
>>> AFAIK the LLVM format doesn't comprehend BPF_TO_LE, just assumes that all
>>>  endian ops are necessarily swaps (rather than sometimes nops).
>> that is being fixed and we will fix asm format too.
>> Let's pick good format first.
> Agreed.
>>>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index 799b245..e7657a4 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -331,20 +331,29 @@ static void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>      u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
>>>
>>>      if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) {
>>> -            if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X)
>>> +            if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_END) {
>>> +                    if (class == BPF_ALU64)
>>> +                            verbose("BUG_alu64_%02x\n", insn->code);
>>> +                    else
>>> +                            verbose("(%02x) (u%d) r%d %s %s\n",
>>> +                                    insn->code, insn->imm, insn->dst_reg,
>>> +                                    bpf_alu_string[BPF_END >> 4],
>>> +                                    BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X ? "be" : "le");
>> yes the bit the same, but please use BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_TO_BE.
> Good point.
>> imo
>> (u16) r4 endian be
>> isn't intuitive.
>> Can we come up with some better syntax?
>> Like
>> bswap16be r4
>> bswap32le r4
> Hmm, I don't like these, since bswapbe is a swap on *le* and a nop on be.
>> or
>>
>> to_be16 r4
>> to_le32 r4
> And the problem here is that it's not just to_be, it's also from_be.

Could you explain what is "from_be" here? Do not quite understand.

>  Otherwise we could write `(be16) r4 = endian (u16) r4` and be much more
>  explicit about what's happening.
> Really the operation is something like `cpu_tofrom_be16 r4`, but that also
>  seems a bit clumsy and longwinded.  Also it's inconsistent with the other
>  ops that all indicate sizes with these (u16) etc casts.
> `endian (be16) r4`, perhaps?