| 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: <CAEf4Bza+bvRHqQ=NTgP_W4W3dscZ9VqLbxYZwns4YB+85KRqwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:26:07 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: fix call relocation offset calculation bug
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
>
> When relocating subprogram call, libbpf doesn't take into account
> relo->text_off, which comes from symbol's value. This generally works fine for
> subprograms implemented as static functions, but breaks for global functions.
>
> Taking a simplified test_pkt_access.c as an example:
>
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> static int test_pkt_access_subprog1(volatile struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> return skb->len * 2;
> }
>
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> static int test_pkt_access_subprog2(int val, volatile struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> return skb->len + val;
> }
>
> SEC("classifier/test_pkt_access")
> int test_pkt_access(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> if (test_pkt_access_subprog1(skb) != skb->len * 2)
> return TC_ACT_SHOT;
> if (test_pkt_access_subprog2(2, skb) != skb->len + 2)
> return TC_ACT_SHOT;
> return TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
> }
>
> When compiled, we get two relocations, pointing to '.text' symbol. .text has
> st_value set to 0 (it points to the beginning of .text section):
>
> 0000000000000008 000000050000000a R_BPF_64_32 0000000000000000 .text
> 0000000000000040 000000050000000a R_BPF_64_32 0000000000000000 .text
>
> test_pkt_access_subprog1 and test_pkt_access_subprog2 offsets (targets of two
> calls) are encoded within call instruction's imm32 part as -1 and 2,
> respectively:
>
> 0000000000000000 test_pkt_access_subprog1:
> 0: 61 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0)
> 1: 64 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 w0 <<= 1
> 2: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> 0000000000000018 test_pkt_access_subprog2:
> 3: 61 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0)
> 4: 04 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 w0 += 2
> 5: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> 0000000000000000 test_pkt_access:
> 0: bf 16 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r1
> ===> 1: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -1
> 2: bc 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w0
> 3: b4 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 w0 = 2
> 4: 61 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0)
> 5: 64 02 00 00 01 00 00 00 w2 <<= 1
> 6: 5e 21 08 00 00 00 00 00 if w1 != w2 goto +8 <LBB0_3>
> 7: bf 61 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = r6
> ===> 8: 85 10 00 00 02 00 00 00 call 2
> 9: bc 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w0
> 10: 61 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0)
> 11: 04 02 00 00 02 00 00 00 w2 += 2
> 12: b4 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff w0 = -1
> 13: 1e 21 01 00 00 00 00 00 if w1 == w2 goto +1 <LBB0_3>
> 14: b4 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 w0 = 2
> 0000000000000078 LBB0_3:
> 15: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> Now, if we compile example with global functions, the setup changes.
> Relocations are now against specifically test_pkt_access_subprog1 and
> test_pkt_access_subprog2 symbols, with test_pkt_access_subprog2 pointing 24
> bytes into its respective section (.text), i.e., 3 instructions in:
>
> 0000000000000008 000000070000000a R_BPF_64_32 0000000000000000 test_pkt_access_subprog1
> 0000000000000048 000000080000000a R_BPF_64_32 0000000000000018 test_pkt_access_subprog2
>
> Calls instructions now encode offsets relative to function symbols and are both
> set ot -1:
>
> 0000000000000000 test_pkt_access_subprog1:
> 0: 61 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0)
> 1: 64 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 w0 <<= 1
> 2: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> 0000000000000018 test_pkt_access_subprog2:
> 3: 61 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0)
> 4: 0c 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 w0 += w1
> 5: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> 0000000000000000 test_pkt_access:
> 0: bf 16 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r1
> ===> 1: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -1
> 2: bc 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w0
> 3: b4 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 w0 = 2
> 4: 61 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0)
> 5: 64 02 00 00 01 00 00 00 w2 <<= 1
> 6: 5e 21 09 00 00 00 00 00 if w1 != w2 goto +9 <LBB2_3>
> 7: b4 01 00 00 02 00 00 00 w1 = 2
> 8: bf 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = r6
> ===> 9: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -1
> 10: bc 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w0
> 11: 61 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0)
> 12: 04 02 00 00 02 00 00 00 w2 += 2
> 13: b4 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff w0 = -1
> 14: 1e 21 01 00 00 00 00 00 if w1 == w2 goto +1 <LBB2_3>
> 15: b4 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 w0 = 2
> 0000000000000080 LBB2_3:
> 16: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> Thus the right formula to calculate target call offset after relocation should
> take into account relocation's target symbol value (offset within section),
> call instruction's imm32 offset, and (subtracting, to get relative instruction
> offset) instruction index of call instruction itself. All that is shifted by
> number of instructions in main program, given all sub-programs are copied over
> after main program.
>
> Convert test_pkt_access.c to global functions to verify this works.
>
> Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> ---
Forgot to include Fixes: tag, please let me know if I should post v2
with it added.
Fixes: 48cca7e44f9f ("libbpf: add support for bpf_call")
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 8 ++++++--
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pkt_access.c | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 15e91a1d6c11..a7d183f7ac72 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -1870,9 +1870,13 @@ bpf_program__collect_reloc(struct bpf_program *prog, GElf_Shdr *shdr,
> pr_warn("incorrect bpf_call opcode\n");
> return -LIBBPF_ERRNO__RELOC;
> }
> + if (sym.st_value % 8) {
> + pr_warn("bad call relo offset: %lu\n", sym.st_value);
> + return -LIBBPF_ERRNO__RELOC;
> + }
> prog->reloc_desc[i].type = RELO_CALL;
> prog->reloc_desc[i].insn_idx = insn_idx;
> - prog->reloc_desc[i].text_off = sym.st_value;
> + prog->reloc_desc[i].text_off = sym.st_value / 8;
> obj->has_pseudo_calls = true;
> continue;
> }
> @@ -3573,7 +3577,7 @@ bpf_program__reloc_text(struct bpf_program *prog, struct bpf_object *obj,
> prog->section_name);
> }
> insn = &prog->insns[relo->insn_idx];
> - insn->imm += prog->main_prog_cnt - relo->insn_idx;
> + insn->imm += relo->text_off + prog->main_prog_cnt - relo->insn_idx;
> return 0;
> }
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pkt_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pkt_access.c
> index 3a7b4b607ed3..dd0d2dfe55d8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pkt_access.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_pkt_access.c
> @@ -35,14 +35,14 @@ int _version SEC("version") = 1;
> *
> * Which makes it an interesting test for BTF-enabled verifier.
> */
> -static __attribute__ ((noinline))
> -int test_pkt_access_subprog1(volatile struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +int test_pkt_access_subprog1(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> return skb->len * 2;
> }
>
> -static __attribute__ ((noinline))
> -int test_pkt_access_subprog2(int val, volatile struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +__attribute__ ((noinline))
> +int test_pkt_access_subprog2(int val, struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> return skb->len * val;
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists