netdev - Re: [PATCH 31/33] bpf: Add __bpf_prog

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: <20160122041302.GB20502@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:13:02 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
	Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/33] bpf: Add __bpf_prog_run() to stacktool whitelist

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:55:41PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:35PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > stacktool reports the following false positive warnings:
> > 
> >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x5c: sibling call from callable instruction with changed frame pointer
> >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x60: function has unreachable instruction
> >   stacktool: kernel/bpf/core.o: __bpf_prog_run()+0x64: function has unreachable instruction
> >   [...]
> > 
> > It's confused by the following dynamic jump instruction in
> > __bpf_prog_run()::
> > 
> >   jmp     *(%r12,%rax,8)
> > 
> > which corresponds to the following line in the C code:
> > 
> >   goto *jumptable[insn->code];
> > 
> > There's no way for stacktool to deterministically find all possible
> > branch targets for a dynamic jump, so it can't verify this code.
> > 
> > In this case the jumps all stay within the function, and there's nothing
> > unusual going on related to the stack, so we can whitelist the function.
> 
> well, few things are very unusual in this function.
> did you see what JMP_CALL does? it's a call into a different function,
> but not like typical indirect call. Will it be ok as well?
> 
> In general it's not possible for any tool to identify all possible
> branch targets. bpf programs can be loaded on the fly and
> jumping sequence will change.
> So if this marking says 'don't bother analyzing this function because
> it does sane stuff' that's probably not the case.
> If this marking says 'don't bother analyzing, the stack may be crazy
> from here on' then it's ok.

So the tool doesn't need to follow all possible call targets.  Instead
it just verifies that all functions follow the frame pointer convention.
That way it doesn't matter *which* function is being called because they
all do the right thing.

But it *does* need to follow all jump targets, so that it can analyze
all possible code paths within the function itself.  With a dynamic
jump, it can't do that.

So the JMP_CALL is fine, but the goto *jumptable[insn->code] isn't.
(And BTW that's the only occurrence of such a dynamic jump table in the
entire kernel.)

-- 
Josh