netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH bpf] tools: bpftool: Fix tags for bpf-to-bpf calls

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

Message-Id: <1525359470.vtelzti5l2.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 03 May 2018 20:50:31 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH bpf] tools: bpftool: Fix tags for bpf-to-bpf calls

Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/1/18 12:51 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Worst case if there's nothing better, potentially what one could do in
>>> bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() is to dump an array of full addresses and
>>> have the imm part as the index pointing to one of them, just unfortunate
>>> that it's likely only needed in ppc64.
>>
>> Ok. We seem to have discussed a few different aspects in this thread.
>> Let me summarize the different aspects we have discussed:
>> 1. Passing address of JIT'ed function to the JIT engines:
>>    Two approaches discussed:
>>    a. Existing approach, where the subprog address is encoded as an
>> offset from __bpf_call_base() in imm32 field of the BPF call
>> instruction. This requires the JIT'ed function to be within 2GB of
>> __bpf_call_base(), which won't be true on ppc64, at the least. So,
>> this won't on ppc64 (and any other architectures where vmalloc'ed
>> (module_alloc()) memory is from a different, far, address range).
> 
> it looks like ppc64 doesn't guarantee today that all of module_alloc()
> will be within 32-bit, but I think it should be trivial to add such
> guarantee. If so, we can define another __bpf_call_base specifically
> for bpf-to-bpf calls when jit is on.

Ok, we prefer not to do that for powerpc (atleast, not for all of 
module_alloc()) at this point.

And since option (c) below is not preferable, I think we will implement 
what Daniel suggested above. This patchset already handles communicating 
the BPF function addresses to the JIT engine, and enhancing 
bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() should address the concerns with bpftool.


- Naveen