| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20241004182854.3674661-5-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 14:28:13 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@...a.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net,
dsahern@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.15 05/31] bpf, x64: Fix a jit convergence issue
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
[ Upstream commit c8831bdbfbab672c006a18006d36932a494b2fd6 ]
Daniel Hodges reported a jit error when playing with a sched-ext program.
The error message is:
unexpected jmp_cond padding: -4 bytes
But further investigation shows the error is actual due to failed
convergence. The following are some analysis:
...
pass4, final_proglen=4391:
...
20e: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
211: 74 7d je 0x290
213: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
...
289: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
28c: 74 17 je 0x2a5
28e: e9 7f ff ff ff jmp 0x212
293: bf 03 00 00 00 mov edi,0x3
Note that insn at 0x211 is 2-byte cond jump insn for offset 0x7d (-125)
and insn at 0x28e is 5-byte jmp insn with offset -129.
pass5, final_proglen=4392:
...
20e: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
211: 0f 84 80 00 00 00 je 0x297
217: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
...
28d: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
290: 74 1a je 0x2ac
292: eb 84 jmp 0x218
294: bf 03 00 00 00 mov edi,0x3
Note that insn at 0x211 is 6-byte cond jump insn now since its offset
becomes 0x80 based on previous round (0x293 - 0x213 = 0x80). At the same
time, insn at 0x292 is a 2-byte insn since its offset is -124.
pass6 will repeat the same code as in pass4. pass7 will repeat the same
code as in pass5, and so on. This will prevent eventual convergence.
Passes 1-14 are with padding = 0. At pass15, padding is 1 and related
insn looks like:
211: 0f 84 80 00 00 00 je 0x297
217: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
...
24d: 48 85 d2 test rdx,rdx
The similar code in pass14:
211: 74 7d je 0x290
213: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
...
249: 48 85 d2 test rdx,rdx
24c: 74 21 je 0x26f
24e: 48 01 f7 add rdi,rsi
...
Before generating the following insn,
250: 74 21 je 0x273
"padding = 1" enables some checking to ensure nops is either 0 or 4
where
#define INSN_SZ_DIFF (((addrs[i] - addrs[i - 1]) - (prog - temp)))
nops = INSN_SZ_DIFF - 2
In this specific case,
addrs[i] = 0x24e // from pass14
addrs[i-1] = 0x24d // from pass15
prog - temp = 3 // from 'test rdx,rdx' in pass15
so
nops = -4
and this triggers the failure.
To fix the issue, we need to break cycles of je <-> jmp. For example,
in the above case, we have
211: 74 7d je 0x290
the offset is 0x7d. If 2-byte je insn is generated only if
the offset is less than 0x7d (<= 0x7c), the cycle can be
break and we can achieve the convergence.
I did some study on other cases like je <-> je, jmp <-> je and
jmp <-> jmp which may cause cycles. Those cases are not from actual
reproducible cases since it is pretty hard to construct a test case
for them. the results show that the offset <= 0x7b (0x7b = 123) should
be enough to cover all cases. This patch added a new helper to generate 8-bit
cond/uncond jmp insns only if the offset range is [-128, 123].
Reported-by: Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@...a.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240904221251.37109-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index f7a0e9708418d..ac06f53391ec1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -51,6 +51,56 @@ static bool is_imm8(int value)
return value <= 127 && value >= -128;
}
+/*
+ * Let us limit the positive offset to be <= 123.
+ * This is to ensure eventual jit convergence For the following patterns:
+ * ...
+ * pass4, final_proglen=4391:
+ * ...
+ * 20e: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
+ * 211: 74 7d je 0x290
+ * 213: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
+ * ...
+ * 289: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
+ * 28c: 74 17 je 0x2a5
+ * 28e: e9 7f ff ff ff jmp 0x212
+ * 293: bf 03 00 00 00 mov edi,0x3
+ * Note that insn at 0x211 is 2-byte cond jump insn for offset 0x7d (-125)
+ * and insn at 0x28e is 5-byte jmp insn with offset -129.
+ *
+ * pass5, final_proglen=4392:
+ * ...
+ * 20e: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
+ * 211: 0f 84 80 00 00 00 je 0x297
+ * 217: 48 8b 77 00 mov rsi,QWORD PTR [rdi+0x0]
+ * ...
+ * 28d: 48 85 ff test rdi,rdi
+ * 290: 74 1a je 0x2ac
+ * 292: eb 84 jmp 0x218
+ * 294: bf 03 00 00 00 mov edi,0x3
+ * Note that insn at 0x211 is 6-byte cond jump insn now since its offset
+ * becomes 0x80 based on previous round (0x293 - 0x213 = 0x80).
+ * At the same time, insn at 0x292 is a 2-byte insn since its offset is
+ * -124.
+ *
+ * pass6 will repeat the same code as in pass4 and this will prevent
+ * eventual convergence.
+ *
+ * To fix this issue, we need to break je (2->6 bytes) <-> jmp (5->2 bytes)
+ * cycle in the above. In the above example je offset <= 0x7c should work.
+ *
+ * For other cases, je <-> je needs offset <= 0x7b to avoid no convergence
+ * issue. For jmp <-> je and jmp <-> jmp cases, jmp offset <= 0x7c should
+ * avoid no convergence issue.
+ *
+ * Overall, let us limit the positive offset for 8bit cond/uncond jmp insn
+ * to maximum 123 (0x7b). This way, the jit pass can eventually converge.
+ */
+static bool is_imm8_jmp_offset(int value)
+{
+ return value <= 123 && value >= -128;
+}
+
static bool is_simm32(s64 value)
{
return value == (s64)(s32)value;
@@ -1574,7 +1624,7 @@ st: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
return -EFAULT;
}
jmp_offset = addrs[i + insn->off] - addrs[i];
- if (is_imm8(jmp_offset)) {
+ if (is_imm8_jmp_offset(jmp_offset)) {
if (jmp_padding) {
/* To keep the jmp_offset valid, the extra bytes are
* padded before the jump insn, so we subtract the
@@ -1648,7 +1698,7 @@ st: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
break;
}
emit_jmp:
- if (is_imm8(jmp_offset)) {
+ if (is_imm8_jmp_offset(jmp_offset)) {
if (jmp_padding) {
/* To avoid breaking jmp_offset, the extra bytes
* are padded before the actual jmp insn, so
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists