netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: optimize constant blinding

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: <87r27y25c3.fsf@netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:25:48 +0100
From:   Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: optimize constant blinding


Jiong Wang writes:

> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
>> <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
>>> account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
>>> same, for each BPF instruction that needs constant blinding. This is
>>> inefficient and can lead to soft lockup with sufficiently large
>>> programs, such as the new verifier scalability test (ld_dw: xor
>>> semi-random 64 bit imms, test 5 -- with net.core.bpf_jit_harden=2)
>>
>> Slowdown you see is due to patch_insn right?
>> In such case I prefer to fix the scaling issue of patch_insn instead.
>> This specific fix for blinding only is not addressing the core of the problem.
>> Jiong,
>> how is the progress on fixing patch_insn?

And what I have done is I have digested your conversion with Edward, and is
slightly incline to the BB based approach as it also exposes the inserted
insn to later pass in a natural way, then was trying to find a way that
could create BB info in little extra code based on current verifier code,
for example as a side effect of check_subprogs which is doing two insn
traversal already. (I had some such code before in the historical
wip/bpf-loop-detection branch, but feel it might be still too heavy for
just improving insn patching)

>
> I actually was about to reply this email as we have discussed exactly the
> same issue on jit blinding here:
>
>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg01836.html
>
> And sorry for the slow progress on fixing patch_insn, please give me one
> more week, I will try to send out a RFC for it.
>
> Regards,
> Jiong