netdev - Re: [PATCH rfc bpf-next 1/8] bpf, x86: generalize and extend bpf_arch_text

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: <17b06848-c0e0-e766-912e-e11f85de9eca@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:42:44 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc bpf-next 1/8] bpf, x86: generalize and extend
 bpf_arch_text_poke for direct jumps

On 11/16/19 12:22 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:04 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Add BPF_MOD_{NOP_TO_JUMP,JUMP_TO_JUMP,JUMP_TO_NOP} patching for x86
>> JIT in order to be able to patch direct jumps or nop them out. We need
>> this facility in order to patch tail call jumps and in later work also
>> BPF static keys.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> ---
> 
> just naming nits, looks good otherwise
> 
>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>   include/linux/bpf.h         |  6 ++++
>>   2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 2e586f579945..66921f2aeece 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -203,8 +203,9 @@ struct jit_context {
>>   /* Maximum number of bytes emitted while JITing one eBPF insn */
>>   #define BPF_MAX_INSN_SIZE      128
>>   #define BPF_INSN_SAFETY                64
>> -/* number of bytes emit_call() needs to generate call instruction */
>> -#define X86_CALL_SIZE          5
>> +
>> +/* Number of bytes emit_patchable() needs to generate instructions */
>> +#define X86_PATCHABLE_SIZE     5
>>
>>   #define PROLOGUE_SIZE          25
>>
>> @@ -215,7 +216,7 @@ struct jit_context {
>>   static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf)
>>   {
>>          u8 *prog = *pprog;
>> -       int cnt = X86_CALL_SIZE;
>> +       int cnt = X86_PATCHABLE_SIZE;
>>
>>          /* BPF trampoline can be made to work without these nops,
>>           * but let's waste 5 bytes for now and optimize later
>> @@ -480,64 +481,91 @@ static void emit_stx(u8 **pprog, u32 size, u32 dst_reg, u32 src_reg, int off)
>>          *pprog = prog;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int emit_call(u8 **pprog, void *func, void *ip)
>> +static int emit_patchable(u8 **pprog, void *func, void *ip, u8 b1)
> 
> I'd strongly prefer opcode instead of b1 :) also would emit_patch() be
> a terrible name?

Hmm, been using b1 since throughout the JIT we use u8 b1/b2/b3/.. for our
EMIT*() macros to denote the encoding positions. So I thought it would be
more conventional, but could also change to op if preferred.

>>   {
>>          u8 *prog = *pprog;
>>          int cnt = 0;
>>          s64 offset;
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>>          case BPF_MOD_CALL_TO_NOP:
>> -               if (memcmp(ip, old_insn, X86_CALL_SIZE))
>> +       case BPF_MOD_JUMP_TO_NOP:
>> +               if (memcmp(ip, old_insn, X86_PATCHABLE_SIZE))
>>                          goto out;
>> -               text_poke_bp(ip, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], X86_CALL_SIZE, NULL);
>> +               text_poke_bp(ip, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], X86_PATCHABLE_SIZE,
> 
> maybe keep it shorter with X86_PATCH_SIZE?

Sure, then X86_PATCH_SIZE and emit_patch() it is.

>> +                            NULL);
>>                  break;
>>          }
>>          ret = 0;
> 
> [...]
>