netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix narrower loads on s390

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: <CAH3MdRV-qsJnyZVV1GnxRZ4=3KXTvKSgETp90fyevxycmAiHmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:25:23 -0700
From:   Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
To:     Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix narrower loads on s390

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 3:36 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Am 17.07.2019 um 11:21 schrieb Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>:
> >
> >> Am 17.07.2019 um 07:11 schrieb Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>:
> >>
> >> [sorry, resend again as previous one has come text messed out due to
> >> networking issues]
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:08 PM Y Song <ys114321@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:59 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> test_pkt_md_access is failing on s390, since the associated eBPF prog
> >>>> returns TC_ACT_SHOT, which in turn happens because loading a part of a
> >>>> struct __sk_buff field produces an incorrect result.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is that when verifier emits the code to replace partial load
> >>>> of a field with a full load, a shift and a bitwise AND, it assumes that
> >>>> the machine is little endian.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adjust shift count calculation to account for endianness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 31fd85816dbe ("bpf: permits narrower load from bpf program context fields")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 ++++++--
> >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>>> index 5900cbb966b1..3f9353653558 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>>> @@ -8616,8 +8616,12 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >>>>               }
> >>>>
> >>>>               if (is_narrower_load && size < target_size) {
> >>>> -                       u8 shift = (off & (size_default - 1)) * 8;
> >>>> -
> >>>> +                       u8 load_off = off & (size_default - 1);
> >>>> +#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> >>>> +                       u8 shift = load_off * 8;
> >>>> +#else
> >>>> +                       u8 shift = (size_default - (load_off + size)) * 8;
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>
> >> All the values are in register. The shifting operations should be the
> >> same for big endian and little endian, e.g., value 64 >> 2 = 16 when
> >> value "64" is in register. So I did not see a problem here.
> >>
> >> Could you elaborate which field access in test_pkt_md_access
> >> caused problem?
> >
> > The very first one: TEST_FIELD(__u8,  len, 0xFF);
> >
> >> It would be good if you can give detailed memory layout and register values
> >> to illustrate the problem.
> >
> > Suppose len = 0x11223344. On a big endian system, this would be
> >
> > 11 22 33 44
> >
> > Now, we would like to do *(u8 *)&len, the desired result is 0x11.
> > Verifier should emit the following: ((*(u32 *)&len) >> 24) & 0xff, but as
> > of today it misses the shift.
> >
> > On a little endian system the layout is:
> >
> > 44 33 22 11
> >
> > and the desired result is different - 0x44. Verifier correctly emits
> > (*(u32 *)&len) & 0xff.
>
> I’ve just realized, that this example does not reflect what the test is
> doing on big-endian systems (there is an #ifdef for those).
>
> Here is a better one: len=0x11223344 and we would like to do
> ((u8 *)&len)[3].
>
> len is represented as `11 22 33 44` in memory, so the desired result is
> 0x44. It can be obtained by doing (*(u32 *)&len) & 0xff, but today the
> verifier does ((*(u32 *)&len) >> 24) & 0xff instead.

What you described above for the memory layout all makes sense.
The root cause is for big endian, we should do *((u8 *)&len + 3).
This is exactly what macros in test_pkt_md_access.c tries to do.

if  __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
#define TEST_FIELD(TYPE, FIELD, MASK)                                   \
        {                                                               \
                TYPE tmp = *(volatile TYPE *)&skb->FIELD;               \
                if (tmp != ((*(volatile __u32 *)&skb->FIELD) & MASK))   \
                        return TC_ACT_SHOT;                             \
        }
#else
#define TEST_FIELD_OFFSET(a, b) ((sizeof(a) - sizeof(b)) / sizeof(b))
#define TEST_FIELD(TYPE, FIELD, MASK)                                   \
        {                                                               \
                TYPE tmp = *((volatile TYPE *)&skb->FIELD +             \
                              TEST_FIELD_OFFSET(skb->FIELD, TYPE));     \
                if (tmp != ((*(volatile __u32 *)&skb->FIELD) & MASK))   \
                        return TC_ACT_SHOT;                             \
        }
#endif

Could you check whether your __BYTE_ORDER__ is set
correctly or not for this case? You may need to tweak Makefile
if you are doing cross compilation, I am not sure how as I
did not have environment.