[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJd=_OZJUWVcQH7OtaH2cv8FLsB7kBhxZANsR9O3+AfZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:01:36 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
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>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf: ensure main program has an extable
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:04 PM Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com> wrote:
>
> When bpf subprograms are in use, the main program is not jit'd after the
> subprograms because jit_subprogs sets a value for prog->bpf_func upon
> success. Subsequent calls to the JIT are bypassed when this value is
> non-NULL. This leads to a situation where the main program and its
> func[0] counterpart are both in the bpf kallsyms tree, but only func[0]
> has an extable. Extables are only created during JIT. Now there are
> two nearly identical program ksym entries in the tree, but only one has
> an extable. Depending upon how the entries are placed, there's a chance
> that a fault will call search_extable on the aux with the NULL entry.
>
> Since jit_subprogs already copies state from func[0] to the main
> program, include the extable pointer in this state duplication. The
> alternative is to skip adding the main program to the bpf_kallsyms
> table, but that would mean adding a check for subprograms into the
> middle of bpf_prog_load.
adding a check to bpf_prog_load() isn't great. that's true, but...
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 1c2a088a6626 ("bpf: x64: add JIT support for multi-function programs")
> Signed-off-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 5871aa78d01a..d6939db9fbf9 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -17242,6 +17242,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> prog->jited = 1;
> prog->bpf_func = func[0]->bpf_func;
> prog->jited_len = func[0]->jited_len;
> + prog->aux->extable = func[0]->aux->extable;
Why not to do this hunk and what I suggested earlier: start from func=1 ?
That will address double ksym insertion that Yonghong mentioned.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists