netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler

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: <59495367.3080402@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:55:03 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>
CC:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler

On 06/20/2017 03:34 AM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> Sorry, had a travel over the weekend, so didn't read it in time.
>>
>> What is the issue with imitating in JIT what the interpreter is
>> doing as a starting point? That should be generic enough to handle
>> any case.

Why not proceeding this way first?

>> Otherwise you'd need some sort of reverse mapping since verifier
>> already converted BPF_CALL insns into relative helper addresses
>> in imm part.
>>
> Sorry but I don't get what you are trying to say. Can you explain it
> with an example?

Ok, probably the best is to check fixup_bpf_calls() in the verifier,
see the fn = prog->aux->ops->get_func_proto(insn->imm). It fetches the
helper function specification based on the BPF_FUNC_* enum and converts
the imm field into a relative address for the function such that if
you look at ___bpf_prog_run(), JMP_CALL label, the call address can
be reconstructed again. So you'd need some reverse mapping to get back
to the struct bpf_func_proto, so you can check argX_type that needs to
be extended with whether its JITable on 32bit or not.