linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] arm64, bpf: Add 12-argument support for bpf trampoline

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6a6f7a80-89aa-4fef-b489-262447dbdb1a@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:33:29 +0800
From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau
 <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
 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>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] arm64, bpf: Add 12-argument support for bpf
 trampoline

On 7/8/2024 5:00 PM, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com> writes:
> 
>> On 7/5/2024 8:53 PM, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>>> The arm64 bpf JIT currently supports attaching the trampoline to
>>> functions with <= 8 arguments. This is because up to 8 arguments can be
>>> passed in registers r0-r7. If there are more than 8 arguments then the
>>> 9th and later arguments are passed on the stack, with SP pointing to the
>>> first stacked argument. See aapcs64[1] for more details.
>>>
>>> If the 8th argument is a structure of size > 8B, then it is passed fully
>>> on stack and r7 is not used for passing any argument. If there is a 9th
>>> argument, it will be passed on the stack, even though r7 is available.
>>>
>>> Add the support of storing and restoring arguments passed on the stack
>>> to the arm64 bpf trampoline. This will allow attaching the trampoline to
>>> functions that take up to 12 arguments.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/main/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#parameter-passing
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in V1 -> V2:
>>> V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240704173227.130491-1-puranjay@kernel.org/
>>> - Fixed the argument handling for composite types (structs)
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                | 139 ++++++++++++++-----
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.aarch64 |   3 -
>>>    2 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>>
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>>>    fill_link_info/kprobe_multi_invalid_ubuff        # bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts unexpected error: -95
>>
>> It looks like this patch, similar to [1], also does not handle
>> parameter alignment properly [2].
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> int func(__int128 a, __int128 b, __int128 c, int64_t d, __int128 e, int64_t f, __int128 g)
>> {
>> }
>>
>> parameter a~d are passed through register x0~x6, while parameter
>> e~g are passed through stack. Since __int128 is 16-byte aligned,
>> parameter e, f, and g should be placed at sp + 0, +16, and +32
>> respectively, with 8 bytes **padding** between f and g.
>>
>>
>> And the compiler's alignment or packed attribute may make things
>> worse, causing parameters to be placed on the stack at positions
>> that are not naturally aligned.
> 
> Hi Xu,
> Thanks for explaining this. I was not aware that you have already sent a
> patch[1] to add this support to arm64.
> 
> So, I see that it will be non-trivial to calculate padding for each
> argument passed on the stack. If you are not planning to work on this
> then I can try to implement it.
>

Sure, go ahead and do it.

> Alsoi, do we currently have a selftest that checks for this edge case? if
> not I can try to add that too.
>

Not yet, feel free to add it. Thanks.

> Thanks,
> Puranjay
> 
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230917150752.69612-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CABRcYmLtk8aQEzoUFw+j5Rdd-MXf-q+i7RHXZtu-skjRz11ZDw@mail.gmail.com/