| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzayQ+bEKFHcs8cUDcVnwPpQ2_2gzPaxX-j38r=AWDzVvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:52:58 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@...il.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RESEND] test_verifier #13 fails on arm64: "retval 65507 != -29"
cc Andi Kleen re: refactoring, do you have any insight here?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:12 AM Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 09:51:25PM +0000, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> > Below is the test case.
> > {
> > "valid read map access into a read-only array 2",
> > .insns = {
> > BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
> > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
> > BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
> > BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> > BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
> > BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
> > BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6),
> >
> > BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 4),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
> > BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, 0),
> > BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
> > BPF_FUNC_csum_diff),
> > BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> > },
> > .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
> > .fixup_map_array_ro = { 3 },
> > .result = ACCEPT,
> > .retval = -29,
> > },
> >
> > The issue may be with helper bpf_csum_diff().
> > Maybe you can check bpf_csum_diff() helper return value
> > to confirm and take a further look at bpf_csum_diff implementations
> > between x64 and amd64.
>
> Indeed, the different result comes from csum_partial() or, more precisely,
> do_csum().
I assume this is checksum used for ipv4 header checksum ([0]), right?
It's defined as "16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum
of all 16-bit words", so at the end it has to be folded into 16-bit
anyways.
Reading csum_partial/csum_fold, seems like after calculation of
checksum (so-called unfolded checksum), it is supposed to be passed
into csum_fold() to convert it into 16-bit one and invert.
So maybe that's what is missing from bpf_csum_diff()? Though I've
never used it and don't even know exactly what is its purpose, so
might be (and probably am) totally wrong here (e.g., it might be that
BPF app is supposed to do that or something).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_header_checksum
>
> x86-64 uses an asm optimized version residing in arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c,
> while the generic version is in lib/checksum.c.
>
> I replaced the x86-64 csum_partial() / do_csum() code, with the one in
> lib/checksum.c and by doing so i reproduced the same error on x86-64 (thus, it's
> not an arch dependent issue).
>
> I added some debugging to bpf_csum_diff(), and here are the results with different
> checksum implementation code:
>
> http://paste.debian.net/1091037/
>
> lib/checksum.c:
> ...
> [ 206.084537] ____bpf_csum_diff from_size: 1 to_size: 0
> [ 206.085274] ____bpf_csum_diff from[0]: 28
> [ 206.085276] ____bpf_csum_diff diff[0]: 4294967267
> [ 206.085277] ____bpf_csum_diff diff_size: 4 seed: 0
>
> After csum_partial() call:
>
> [ 206.086059] ____bpf_csum_diff csum: 65507 - 0xffe3
>
> arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> ...
> [ 40.467308] ____bpf_csum_diff from_size: 1 to_size: 0
> [ 40.468141] ____bpf_csum_diff from[0]: 28
> [ 40.468143] ____bpf_csum_diff diff[0]: 4294967267
> [ 40.468144] ____bpf_csum_diff diff_size: 4 seed: 0
>
> After csum_partial() call:
>
> [ 40.468937] ____bpf_csum_diff csum: -29 - 0xffffffe3
>
> One thing that i noticed, x86-64 csum-partial_64.c::do_csum() doesn't reduce the
> calculated checksum to 16bit before returning it (unless the input value is
> odd - *):
>
> arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c::do_csum()
> ...
> if (unlikely(odd)) {
> result = from32to16(result);
> result = ((result >> 8) & 0xff) | ((result & 0xff) << 8);
> }
> return result;
> }
>
> contrary to all the other do_csum() implementations (that i could understand):
>
> lib/checksum.c::do_csum()
> arch/alpha/lib/checksum.c::do_csum()
> arch/parisc/lib/checksum.c::do_csum()
>
> Apparently even ia64 does the folding (arch/ia64/lib/do_csum.S see a comment right
> before .do_csum_exit:), and arch/c6x/lib/csum_64plus.S too (see
> arch/c6x/lib/csum_64plus.S).
>
> Funnily enough, if i change do_csum() for x86-64, folding the
> checksum to 16 bit (following all the other implementations):
>
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> @@ -112,8 +112,8 @@ static unsigned do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, unsigned
> len)
> if (len & 1)
> result += *buff;
> result = add32_with_carry(result>>32, result & 0xffffffff);
> + result = from32to16(result);
> if (unlikely(odd)) {
> - result = from32to16(result);
> result = ((result >> 8) & 0xff) | ((result & 0xff) << 8);
> }
> return result;
>
> then, the x86-64 result match the others: 65507 or 0xffe3.
>
> As a last attempt, i tried running the bpf test_verifier on an armhf platform,
> and i got a completely different number:
>
> [ 57.667999] ____bpf_csum_diff from_size: 1 to_size: 0
> [ 57.668016] ____bpf_csum_diff from[0]: 28
> [ 57.668028] ____bpf_csum_diff diff[0]: 4294967267
> [ 57.668039] ____bpf_csum_diff diff_size: 4 seed: 0
>
> After csum_partial() call:
>
> [ 57.668052] ____bpf_csum_diff::2002 csum: 131042 - 0x0001ffe2
>
> Not sure what to make of these number, but i have a question: whats is the
> correct checksum of the memory chunk passed to csum_partial()? Is it really -29?
>
> Because, at least 2 other implementations i tested (the arm assembly code and
> the c implementation in lib/checksum.c) computes a different value, so either
> there's a bug in checksum calcution (2 out of 3???), or we are interpreting the
> returned value from csum_partial() somehow wrongly.
>
> *: originally, the x86-64 did the 16bit folding, but the logic was changed to
> what we have today during a big rewrite - search for:
>
> commit 3ef076bb685a461bbaff37a1f06010fc4d7ce733
> Author: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
> Date: Fri Jun 13 04:27:34 2003 -0700
>
> [PATCH] x86-64 merge
>
> in this historic repo:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git
> --
> bye,
> p.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists