linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] bpf: Clear callee saved regs after updating REG0

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: <20220809124724.ps6fmzeazizzjoon@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:47:24 -0700
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] bpf: Clear callee saved regs after updating REG0

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:32:39PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:

[...]

> > It being a read-only const is was why I made this a BUILD_BUG_ON. My
> > intention here was to ensure that we're not accidentally skipping the
> > resetting of caller_saved[0]. The original code iterated from
> > caller_saved[0] -> caller_saved[CALLER_SAVED_REGS - 1]. Now that we're
> > starting from caller_saved[1], this compile-time assertion verifies that
> > we're not accidentally skipping caller_saved[0] by checking that it's the
> > same as BPF_REG_0, which is reset above. Does that make sense?
> 
> I think it's an invariant that r0 - r5 are the caller saved args and
> that caller_saved[0] will always be BPF_REG_0. I'm having a hard time
> seeing a case where this would change in the future, but then again, I
> am also not a fortune teller so maybe I am wrong here :) I don't think
> it's a big deal though so I don't feel strongly about this

I agree that it seems very unlikely to change, but I don't see the harm in
leaving it in. Compile time checks are very fast, and are meant for cases
such as these to check constant, build-time invariants. If you feel
strongly, I can remove it.

Thanks,
David