netdev - Re: bisected: 4.18-rc* regression: x86-32 troubles (with timers?)

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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:04:27 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bisected: 4.18-rc* regression: x86-32 troubles (with timers?)

On 07/23/2018 10:34 PM, Meelis Roos wrote:
>>>> Now this seems more relevant:
>>>>
>>>> mroos@...00s2:~/linux$ nice git bisect good
>>>> 24dea04767e6e5175f4750770281b0c17ac6a2fb is the first bad commit
>>>> commit 24dea04767e6e5175f4750770281b0c17ac6a2fb
>>>> Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>> Date:   Fri May 4 01:08:23 2018 +0200
>>>>
>>>>     bpf, x32: remove ld_abs/ld_ind
>>>>
>>>>     Since LD_ABS/LD_IND instructions are now removed from the core and
>>>>     reimplemented through a combination of inlined BPF instructions and
>>>>     a slow-path helper, we can get rid of the complexity from x32 JIT.
>>>
>>> This does seem much more likely than the previous bisection, given
>>> that you ended up in an x86-32 specific commit (the subject says x32,
>>> but that is a mistake). I also checked that systemd indeed does
>>> call into bpf in a number of places, possibly for the journald socket.
>>>
>>> OTOH, it's still hard to tell how that commit can have ended up
>>> corrupting the clock read function in systemd. To cross-check,
>>> could you try reverting that commit on the latest kernel and see
>>> if it still works?
>>
>> I would be curious as well about that whether revert would make it
>> work. What's the value of sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_enable ? Does it
>> change anything if you set it to 0 (only interpreter) or 1 (JIT
>> enabled). Seems a bit strange to me that bisect ended at this commit
>> given the issue you have. The JIT itself was also new in this window
>> fwiw. In any case some more debug info would be great to have.
> 
> net.core.bpf_jit_enable is 1.
> 
> Since it breaks bootup, I can not easily change the value at runtime (it 
> would be postfactum). Do you mean changing the 
> CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y option?

Yeah if you chance it to N, and don't have any fixed /etc/sysctl.conf
setting, then you'll boot up with interpreter first (net.core.bpf_jit_enable
as 0). Curious whether that works just fine for you.

> Anyway, I started compile of v4.18-rc5 that was the latest I tested, 
> with the commit in question reverted. Will see if I can test tomorrow 
> morning. But I will leave tomorrow for a week and can only test further 
> things if they happen to boot fine (no manual reboot possible for a 
> week).

Ok, thanks, please keep us posted on the outcome with the revert. Right
now I would doubt it's related resp. changes anything on the issue, but
lets see.

Thanks,
Daniel