netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] bpf: Introduce function-by-function verification

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:56:24 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] bpf: Introduce function-by-function verification

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 3:39 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
>
> On 01/07, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > New llvm and old llvm with libbpf help produce BTF that distinguish global and
> > static functions. Unlike arguments of static function the arguments of global
> > functions cannot be removed or optimized away by llvm. The compiler has to use
> > exactly the arguments specified in a function prototype. The argument type
> > information allows the verifier validate each global function independently.
> > For now only supported argument types are pointer to context and scalars. In
> > the future pointers to structures, sizes, pointer to packet data can be
> > supported as well. Consider the following example:
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -2621,8 +2621,8 @@ static s32 btf_func_check_meta(struct btf_verifier_env *env,
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> >
> > -     if (btf_type_vlen(t)) {
> > -             btf_verifier_log_type(env, t, "vlen != 0");
> > +     if (btf_type_vlen(t) > BTF_FUNC_EXTERN) {
> > +             btf_verifier_log_type(env, t, "invalid func linkage");
> >               return -EINVAL;
> Sorry for bringing it up after the review:
>
> This effectively teaches kernel about BTF_KIND_FUNC scope argument,
> right? Which means, if I take clang from the tip
> (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fbb64aa69835c8e3e9efe0afc8a73058b5a0fb3c#diff-f191c05d1eb0a6ca0e89d7e7938d73d4)
> and take 5.4 kernel, it will reject BTF because it now has a
> BTF_KIND_FUNC with global scope (any 'main' function is global and has
> non-zero vlen).
>
> What's the general guidance on the situation where clang starts
> spitting out some BTF and released kernels reject it? Is there some list of
> flags I can pass to clang to not emit some of the BTF features?
> Or am I missing something?

Isn't that the issue that 2d3eb67f64ec ("libbpf: Sanitize global
functions") addresses by sanitizing those BTF_KIND_FUNC as static
functions (with vlen=0)?

The general guidance is to have libbpf sanitize such BTF to make it
compatible with old kernels.