linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/10] powerpc/bpf: Perform complete extra passes to update addresses

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: <1673339740.lyeaje9o3l.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:14:17 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong
 Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/10] powerpc/bpf: Perform complete extra passes to
 update addresses

Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 13/12/2022 à 11:23, Naveen N. Rao a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> BPF core calls the jit compiler again for an extra pass in order
>>> to properly set subprog addresses.
>>>
>>> Unlike other architectures, powerpc only updates the addresses
>>> during that extra pass. It means that holes must have been left
>>> in the code in order to enable the maximum possible instruction
>>> size.
>>>
>>> In order avoid waste of space, and waste of CPU time on powerpc
>>> processors on which the NOP instruction is not 0-cycle, perform
>>> two real additional passes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 85 ---------------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 85 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c 
>>> b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> index 43e634126514..8833bf23f5aa 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> @@ -23,74 +23,6 @@ static void bpf_jit_fill_ill_insns(void *area, 
>>> unsigned int size)
>>>      memset32(area, BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION, size / 4);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -/* Fix updated addresses (for subprog calls, ldimm64, et al) during 
>>> extra pass */
>>> -static int bpf_jit_fixup_addresses(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image,
>>> -                   struct codegen_context *ctx, u32 *addrs)
>>> -{
>>> -    const struct bpf_insn *insn = fp->insnsi;
>>> -    bool func_addr_fixed;
>>> -    u64 func_addr;
>>> -    u32 tmp_idx;
>>> -    int i, j, ret;
>>> -
>>> -    for (i = 0; i < fp->len; i++) {
>>> -        /*
>>> -         * During the extra pass, only the branch target addresses for
>>> -         * the subprog calls need to be fixed. All other instructions
>>> -         * can left untouched.
>>> -         *
>>> -         * The JITed image length does not change because we already
>>> -         * ensure that the JITed instruction sequence for these calls
>>> -         * are of fixed length by padding them with NOPs.
>>> -         */
>>> -        if (insn[i].code == (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL) &&
>>> -            insn[i].src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) {
>>> -            ret = bpf_jit_get_func_addr(fp, &insn[i], true,
>>> -                            &func_addr,
>>> -                            &func_addr_fixed);
>> 
>> I don't see you updating calls to bpf_jit_get_func_addr() in 
>> bpf_jit_build_body() to set extra_pass to true. Afaics, that's required 
>> to get the correct address to be branched to for subprogs.
>> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean.

I am referring to the third parameter we pass to 
bpf_jit_get_func_addr().

In bpf_jit_build_body(), we do:

		case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
			ctx->seen |= SEEN_FUNC;

			ret = bpf_jit_get_func_addr(fp, &insn[i], false,
						    &func_addr, &func_addr_fixed);


The third parameter (extra_pass) to bpf_jit_get_func_addr() is set to 
false. In bpf_jit_get_func_addr(), we have:

	*func_addr_fixed = insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL;
	if (!*func_addr_fixed) {
		/* Place-holder address till the last pass has collected
		 * all addresses for JITed subprograms in which case we
		 * can pick them up from prog->aux.
		 */
		if (!extra_pass)
			addr = NULL;

Before this patch series, in bpf_jit_fixup_addresses(), we were calling 
bpf_jit_get_func_addr() with the third parameter set to true.


- Naveen