linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.3 035/135] powerpc/bpf: Fix tail call implementation

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:   Tue,  3 Dec 2019 23:34:35 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.3 035/135] powerpc/bpf: Fix tail call implementation

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>

[ Upstream commit 7de086909365cd60a5619a45af3f4152516fd75c ]

We have seen many crashes on powerpc hosts while loading bpf programs.

The problem here is that bpf_int_jit_compile() does a first pass
to compute the program length.

Then it allocates memory to store the generated program and
calls bpf_jit_build_body() a second time (and a third time
later)

What I have observed is that the second bpf_jit_build_body()
could end up using few more words than expected.

If bpf_jit_binary_alloc() put the space for the program
at the end of the allocated page, we then write on
a non mapped memory.

It appears that bpf_jit_emit_tail_call() calls
bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue() while ctx->seen might not
be stable.

Only after the second pass we can be sure ctx->seen wont be changed.

Trying to avoid a second pass seems quite complex and probably
not worth it.

Fixes: ce0761419faef ("powerpc/bpf: Implement support for tail calls")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191101033444.143741-1-edumazet@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 02a59946a78af..be3517ef0574d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -1141,6 +1141,19 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp)
 		goto out_addrs;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If we have seen a tail call, we need a second pass.
+	 * This is because bpf_jit_emit_common_epilogue() is called
+	 * from bpf_jit_emit_tail_call() with a not yet stable ctx->seen.
+	 */
+	if (cgctx.seen & SEEN_TAILCALL) {
+		cgctx.idx = 0;
+		if (bpf_jit_build_body(fp, 0, &cgctx, addrs, false)) {
+			fp = org_fp;
+			goto out_addrs;
+		}
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * Pretend to build prologue, given the features we've seen.  This will
 	 * update ctgtx.idx as it pretends to output instructions, then we can
-- 
2.20.1