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  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, 5 May 2020 13:11:08 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Tweak BPF jump table optimizations for objtool
 compatibility

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:43:00AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Or, if you want to minimize the patch's impact on other arches, and keep
> > the current patch the way it is (with bug fixed and changed patch
> > description), that's fine too.  I can change the patch description
> > accordingly.
> > 
> > Or if you want me to measure the performance impact of the +40% code
> > growth, and *then* decide what to do, that's also fine.  But you'd need
> > to tell me what tests to run.
> 
> I'd like to minimize the risk and avoid code churn,
> so how about we step back and debug it first?
> Which version of gcc are you using and what .config?
> I've tried:
> Linux version 5.7.0-rc2 (gcc version 10.0.1 20200505 (prerelease) (GCC)
> CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC=y
> # CONFIG_RETPOLINE is not set
> 
> and objtool didn't complain.
> I would like to reproduce it first before making any changes.

Revert

  3193c0836f20 ("bpf: Disable GCC -fgcse optimization for ___bpf_prog_run()")

and compile with retpolines off (and either ORC or FP, doesn't matter).

I'm using GCC 9.3.1:

  kernel/bpf/core.o: warning: objtool: ___bpf_prog_run()+0x8dc: sibling call from callable instruction with modified stack frame

That's the original issue described in that commit.

> Also since objtool cannot follow the optimizations compiler is doing
> how about admit the design failure and teach objtool to build ORC
> (and whatever else it needs to build) based on dwarf for the functions where
> it cannot understand the assembly code ?
> Otherwise objtool will forever be playing whackamole with compilers.

I agree it's not a good long term approach.  But DWARF has its own
issues and we can't rely on it for live patching.

As I mentioned we have a plan to use a compiler plugin to annotate jump
tables (including GCC switch tables).  But the approach taken by this
patch should be good enough for now.

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists