linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

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: <YzHk1zRf1Dp8YTEe@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 18:43:51 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 03:40:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 9/13/22 6:27 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > > This series adds ftrace direct call for arm64, which is required to attach
> > > bpf trampoline to fentry.
> > > 
> > > Although there is no agreement on how to support ftrace direct call on arm64,
> > > no patch has been posted except the one I posted in [1], so this series
> > > continues the work of [1] with the addition of long jump support. Now ftrace
> > > direct call works regardless of the distance between the callsite and custom
> > > trampoline.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220518131638.3401509-2-xukuohai@huawei.com/
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > > - Fix compile and runtime errors caused by ftrace_rec_arch_init
> > > 
> > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220913063146.74750-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
> > > 
> > > Xu Kuohai (4):
> > >    ftrace: Allow users to disable ftrace direct call
> > >    arm64: ftrace: Support long jump for ftrace direct call
> > >    arm64: ftrace: Add ftrace direct call support
> > >    ftrace: Fix dead loop caused by direct call in ftrace selftest
> > 
> > Given there's just a tiny fraction touching BPF JIT and most are around core arm64,
> > it probably makes sense that this series goes via Catalin/Will through arm64 tree
> > instead of bpf-next if it looks good to them. Catalin/Will, thoughts (Ack + bpf-next
> > could work too, but I'd presume this just results in merge conflicts)?
> 
> I think it makes sense for the series to go via the arm64 tree but I'd
> like Mark to have a look at the ftrace changes first.

>From a quick scan, I still don't think this is quite right, and as it stands I
believe this will break backtracing (as the instructions before the function
entry point will not be symbolized correctly, getting in the way of
RELIABLE_STACKTRACE). I think I was insufficiently clear with my earlier
feedback there, as I have a mechanism in mind that wa a little simpler.

I'll try to reply with some more detail tomorrow, but I don't think this is the
right approach, and as mentioned previously (and e.g. at LPC) I'd strongly
prefer to *not* implement direct calls, so that we can have more consistent
entry/exit handling.

Thanks,
Mark.