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: <CADxym3abYOZ5JVa4FP5R-Vi7HAk=n_0vTmMGveDH8xvFtuaBDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 11:17:45 +0800
From:   Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
        imagedong@...cent.com, benbjiang@...cent.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to
 12 for TRACING

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:09 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 08:59:09PM +0800, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> >
> > For now, the BPF program of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING can only be used
> > on the kernel functions whose arguments count less than 6. This is not
> > friendly at all, as too many functions have arguments count more than 6.
> >
> > Therefore, let's enhance it by increasing the function arguments count
> > allowed in arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(), for now, only x86_64.
> >
> > For the case that we don't need to call origin function, which means
> > without BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need only copy the function arguments
> > that stored in the frame of the caller to current frame. The arguments
> > of arg6-argN are stored in "$rbp + 0x18", we need copy them to
> > "$rbp - regs_off + (6 * 8)".
> >
> > For the case with BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need prepare the arguments
> > in stack before call origin function, which means we need alloc extra
> > "8 * (arg_count - 6)" memory in the top of the stack. Note, there should
> > not be any data be pushed to the stack before call the origin function.
> > Then, we have to store rbx with 'mov' instead of 'push'.
>
> x86-64 psABI requires stack to be 16-byte aligned when args are passed on the stack.
> I don't see this logic in the patch.

Yeah, it seems I missed this logic......:)

I have not figure out the rule of the alignment, but after
observing the behavior of the compiler, the stack seems
should be like this:

------ stack frame begin
rbp

xxx   -- this part should be aligned in 16-byte

------ end of arguments in stack
xxx
------ begin of arguments in stack

So the code should be:

+       if (nr_regs > 6 && (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG)) {
+                stack_size = ALIGN(stack_size, 16);
+                stack_size += (nr_regs - 6) * 8;
+       }

Am I right?

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ