netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/13] bpf/tests: Add tail call limit test with external function call

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:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:59:58 +0200
From:   Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/13] bpf/tests: Add tail call limit test
 with external function call

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:46 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 9/8/21 12:53 PM, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:10 PM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2021-09-08 at 00:23 +0200, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> >>> This patch adds a tail call limit test where the program also emits
> >>> a BPF_CALL to an external function prior to the tail call. Mainly
> >>> testing that JITed programs preserve its internal register state, for
> >>> example tail call count, across such external calls.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@...finetworks.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   lib/test_bpf.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>   1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> index 7475abfd2186..6e45b4da9841 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >>> @@ -12259,6 +12259,20 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >>> = {
> >>>                  },
> >>>                  .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>>          },
> >>> +       {
> >>> +               "Tail call count preserved across function calls",
> >>> +               .insns = {
> >>> +                       BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, R1, 1),
> >>> +                       BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, R10, R1, -8),
> >>> +                       BPF_CALL_REL(0),
> >>> +                       BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, R1, R10, -8),
> >>> +                       BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_MOV, R0, R1),
> >>> +                       TAIL_CALL(0),
> >>> +                       BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> >>> +               },
> >>> +               .stack_depth = 8,
> >>> +               .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>> +       },
> >>>          {
> >>>                  "Tail call error path, NULL target",
> >>>                  .insns = {
> >>
> >> There seems to be a problem with BPF_CALL_REL(0) on s390, since it
> >> assumes that test_bpf_func and __bpf_call_base are within +-2G of
> >> each other, which is not (yet) the case.
> >
> > The idea with this test is to mess up a JITed program's internal state
> > if it does not properly save/restore those regs. I would like to keep
> > the test in some form, but I do see the problem here.
> >
> > Another option could perhaps be to skip this test at runtime if the
> > computed offset is outside +-2G. If the offset is greater than that it
> > does not fit into the 32-bit BPF immediate field, and must therefore
> > be skipped. This would work for other archs too.
>
> Sounds reasonable as a work-around/to move forward.

I'll do this and prepare a v3 then.

>
> > Yet another solution would be call one or several bpf helpers instead.
> > As I understand it, they should always be located within this range,
> > otherwise they would not be callable from a BPF program. The reason I
> > did not do this was because I found helpers that don't require any
> > context to be too simple. Ideally one would want to call something
> > that uses pretty much all available caller-saved CPU registers. I
> > figured snprintf would be complex/nasty enough for this purpose.
>
> Potentially bpf_csum_diff() could also be a candidate, and fairly
> straight forward to set up from raw asm.

Thanks, I will take a look at it.

>
> >> I can't think of a good fix, so how about something like this?
> >>
> >> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> >> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> >> @@ -12257,6 +12257,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >> = {
> >>                  },
> >>                  .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>          },
> >> +#ifndef __s390__
> >>          {
> >>                  "Tail call count preserved across function calls",
> >>                  .insns = {
> >> @@ -12271,6 +12272,7 @@ static struct tail_call_test tail_call_tests[]
> >> = {
> >>                  .stack_depth = 8,
> >>                  .result = MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT + 1,
> >>          },
> >> +#endif
> >>          {
> >>                  "Tail call error path, NULL target",
> >>                  .insns = {
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
>