linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] bpf, arm64: use bpf_jit_binary_pack

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: <CAADnVQJqDOMABEx8JuU6r_Dehyf=SkDfRNChx1oNfqPoo7pSrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:24:54 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] bpf, arm64: use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 8:31 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:01:21AM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> > Use bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc for memory management of JIT binaries in
> > ARM64 BPF JIT. The bpf_jit_binary_pack_alloc creates a pair of RW and RX
> > buffers. The JIT writes the program into the RW buffer. When the JIT is
> > done, the program is copied to the final RX buffer
> > with bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize.
> >
> > Implement bpf_arch_text_copy() and bpf_arch_text_invalidate() for ARM64
> > JIT as these functions are required by bpf_jit_binary_pack allocator.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
>
> From a quick look, I don't beleive the I-cache maintenance is quite right --
> explanation below.
>
> > @@ -1562,34 +1610,39 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >
> >       /* 3. Extra pass to validate JITed code. */
> >       if (validate_ctx(&ctx)) {
> > -             bpf_jit_binary_free(header);
> >               prog = orig_prog;
> > -             goto out_off;
> > +             goto out_free_hdr;
> >       }
> >
> >       /* And we're done. */
> >       if (bpf_jit_enable > 1)
> >               bpf_jit_dump(prog->len, prog_size, 2, ctx.image);
> >
> > -     bpf_flush_icache(header, ctx.image + ctx.idx);
> > +     bpf_flush_icache(ro_header, ctx.ro_image + ctx.idx);
>
> I think this is too early; we haven't copied the instructions into the
> ro_header yet, so that still contains stale instructions.
>
> IIUC at the whole point of this is to pack multiple programs into shared ROX
> pages, and so there can be an executable mapping of the RO page at this point,
> and the CPU can fetch stale instructions throught that.
>
> Note that *regardless* of whether there is an executeable mapping at this point
> (and even if no executable mapping exists until after the copy), we at least
> need a data cache clean to the PoU *after* the copy (so fetches don't get a
> stale value from the PoU), and the I-cache maintenance has to happeon the VA
> the instrutions will be executed from (or VIPT I-caches can still contain stale
> instructions).

Good catch.
Also considering the boot issue reported in the other thread
I removed this series from bpf-next.
Looks like another respin is necessary.