netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 11/16] bpf, libbpf: support global data/bss/rodata sections

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: <82026bc1-066d-9779-ec3a-83e086fc1780@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 02:35:09 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, jannh@...gle.com,
        Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 11/16] bpf, libbpf: support global
 data/bss/rodata sections

On 04/19/2019 03:18 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:20 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> +       def->type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY;
>> +       def->key_size = sizeof(int);
>> +       def->value_size = data->d_size;
>> +       def->max_entries = 1;
>> +       def->map_flags = type == LIBBPF_MAP_RODATA ?
>> +                        BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG : 0;
> 
> This is breaking BPF programs (even those that don't use global data,
> as they still have .rodata section, though I haven't investigated its
> contents) on kernels that don't yet support BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG flag
> yet. We probably need to probe support for that flag first, before
> using it. Just giving heads up, as I just discovered it trying to sync
> libbpf on github.

Thanks for reporting! On a quick look test_progs (modulo global data test)
seems to pass with an slightly older kernel. I'll retry with a latest LLVM git
tree tomorrow with our test suite. Did you see a specific one failing or do you
have a reproducer in case it's something not covered where I could look into?