linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/33] bpf: Add __bpf_prog

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]

Message-ID: <20160122171956.GD9608@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:19:57 -0800
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
	Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/33] bpf: Add __bpf_prog_run() to stacktool whitelist

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:13:02PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:55:41PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:35PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > stacktool reports the following false positive warnings:
> > > 
> > >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x5c: sibling call from callable instruction with changed frame pointer
> > >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x60: function has unreachable instruction
> > >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x64: function has unreachable instruction
> > >   [...]
> > > 
> > > It's confused by the following dynamic jump instruction in
> > > __bpf_prog_run()::
> > > 
> > >   jmp     *(%r12,%rax,8)
> > > 
> > > which corresponds to the following line in the C code:
> > > 
> > >   goto *jumptable[insn->code];
> > > 
> > > There's no way for stacktool to deterministically find all possible
> > > branch targets for a dynamic jump, so it can't verify this code.
> > > 
> > > In this case the jumps all stay within the function, and there's nothing
> > > unusual going on related to the stack, so we can whitelist the function.
> > 
> > well, few things are very unusual in this function.
> > did you see what JMP_CALL does? it's a call into a different function,
> > but not like typical indirect call. Will it be ok as well?
> > 
> > In general it's not possible for any tool to identify all possible
> > branch targets. bpf programs can be loaded on the fly and
> > jumping sequence will change.
> > So if this marking says 'don't bother analyzing this function because
> > it does sane stuff' that's probably not the case.
> > If this marking says 'don't bother analyzing, the stack may be crazy
> > from here on' then it's ok.
> 
> So the tool doesn't need to follow all possible call targets.  Instead
> it just verifies that all functions follow the frame pointer convention.
> That way it doesn't matter *which* function is being called because they
> all do the right thing.
> 
> But it *does* need to follow all jump targets, so that it can analyze
> all possible code paths within the function itself.  With a dynamic
> jump, it can't do that.
> 
> So the JMP_CALL is fine, but the goto *jumptable[insn->code] isn't.
> (And BTW that's the only occurrence of such a dynamic jump table in the
> entire kernel.)

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>