netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 6/6] bpf: fix JITed dump for multi-function programs via syscall

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <654d4424-ad99-2b5e-dcbf-9e352aec75d6@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 17:51:47 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ast@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 6/6] bpf: fix JITed dump for multi-function
 programs via syscall

On 05/18/2018 02:50 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
> Currently, for multi-function programs, we cannot get the JITed
> instructions using the bpf system call's BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD
> command. Because of this, userspace tools such as bpftool fail
> to identify a multi-function program as being JITed or not.
> 
> With the JIT enabled and the test program running, this can be
> verified as follows:
> 
>   # cat /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
>   1
> 
> Before applying this patch:
> 
>   # bpftool prog list
>   1: kprobe  name foo  tag b811aab41a39ad3d  gpl
>           loaded_at 2018-05-16T11:43:38+0530  uid 0
>           xlated 216B  not jited  memlock 65536B
>   ...
> 
>   # bpftool prog dump jited id 1
>   no instructions returned
> 
> After applying this patch:
> 
>   # bpftool prog list
>   1: kprobe  name foo  tag b811aab41a39ad3d  gpl
>           loaded_at 2018-05-16T12:13:01+0530  uid 0
>           xlated 216B  jited 308B  memlock 65536B
>   ...

That's really nice! One comment inline below:

>   # bpftool prog dump jited id 1
>      0:   nop
>      4:   nop
>      8:   mflr    r0
>      c:   std     r0,16(r1)
>     10:   stdu    r1,-112(r1)
>     14:   std     r31,104(r1)
>     18:   addi    r31,r1,48
>     1c:   li      r3,10
>   ...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 54a72fafe57c..2430d159078c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -1896,7 +1896,7 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog,
>  	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
>  	u32 info_len = attr->info.info_len;
>  	char __user *uinsns;
> -	u32 ulen;
> +	u32 ulen, i;
>  	int err;
>  
>  	err = check_uarg_tail_zero(uinfo, sizeof(info), info_len);
> @@ -1922,7 +1922,6 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog,
>  	ulen = min_t(u32, info.nr_map_ids, ulen);
>  	if (ulen) {
>  		u32 __user *user_map_ids = u64_to_user_ptr(info.map_ids);
> -		u32 i;
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < ulen; i++)
>  			if (put_user(prog->aux->used_maps[i]->id,
> @@ -1970,13 +1969,41 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog,
>  	 * for offload.
>  	 */
>  	ulen = info.jited_prog_len;
> -	info.jited_prog_len = prog->jited_len;
> +	if (prog->aux->func_cnt) {
> +		info.jited_prog_len = 0;
> +		for (i = 0; i < prog->aux->func_cnt; i++)
> +			info.jited_prog_len += prog->aux->func[i]->jited_len;
> +	} else {
> +		info.jited_prog_len = prog->jited_len;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (info.jited_prog_len && ulen) {
>  		if (bpf_dump_raw_ok()) {
>  			uinsns = u64_to_user_ptr(info.jited_prog_insns);
>  			ulen = min_t(u32, info.jited_prog_len, ulen);
> -			if (copy_to_user(uinsns, prog->bpf_func, ulen))
> -				return -EFAULT;
> +
> +			/* for multi-function programs, copy the JITed
> +			 * instructions for all the functions
> +			 */
> +			if (prog->aux->func_cnt) {
> +				u32 len, free;
> +				u8 *img;
> +
> +				free = ulen;
> +				for (i = 0; i < prog->aux->func_cnt; i++) {
> +					len = prog->aux->func[i]->jited_len;
> +					img = (u8 *) prog->aux->func[i]->bpf_func;
> +					if (len > free)
> +						break;
> +					if (copy_to_user(uinsns, img, len))
> +						return -EFAULT;
> +					uinsns += len;
> +					free -= len;

Is there any way we can introduce a delimiter between the different
images such that they could be more easily correlated with the call
from the main (or other sub-)program instead of having one contiguous
dump blob?

> +				}
> +			} else {
> +				if (copy_to_user(uinsns, prog->bpf_func, ulen))
> +					return -EFAULT;
> +			}
>  		} else {
>  			info.jited_prog_insns = 0;
>  		}
> @@ -1987,7 +2014,6 @@ static int bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(struct bpf_prog *prog,
>  	if (info.nr_jited_ksyms && ulen) {
>  		u64 __user *user_jited_ksyms = u64_to_user_ptr(info.jited_ksyms);
>  		ulong ksym_addr;
> -		u32 i;
>  
>  		/* copy the address of the kernel symbol corresponding to
>  		 * each function
>