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  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]
Date:   Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:04:13 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...com>, <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: fix CO-RE relocs against .text section



On 6/19/20 4:04 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> bpf_object__find_program_by_title(), used by CO-RE relocation code, doesn't
> return .text "BPF program", if it is a function storage for sub-programs.
> Because of that, any CO-RE relocation in helper non-inlined functions will
> fail. Fix this by searching for .text-corresponding BPF program manually.
> 
> Adjust one of bpf_iter selftest to exhibit this pattern.
> 
> Reported-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> Fixes: ddc7c3042614 ("libbpf: implement BPF CO-RE offset relocation algorithm")
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>

But the fix here only fixed the issue for interpreter mode.
For jit only mode, we still have issues. The following patch can fix
the jit mode issue,

=============

 From 4d66814513ec45b86a30a1231b8a000d4bfc6f1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:26:13 -0700
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: set the number of exception entries properly for
  subprograms

Currently, if a bpf program has more than one subprograms, each
program will be jitted separately. For tracing problem, the
prog->aux->num_exentries is not setup properly. For example,
with bpf_iter_netlink.c modified to force one function not inlined,
and with proper libbpf fix, with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON,
we will have error like below:
   $ ./test_progs -n 3/3
   ...
   libbpf: failed to load program 'iter/netlink'
   libbpf: failed to load object 'bpf_iter_netlink'
   libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'bpf_iter_netlink': -4007
   test_netlink:FAIL:bpf_iter_netlink__open_and_load skeleton 
open_and_load failed
   #3/3 netlink:FAIL
The dmesg shows the following errors:
   ex gen bug
which is triggered by the following code in arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
   if (excnt >= bpf_prog->aux->num_exentries) {
     pr_err("ex gen bug\n");
     return -EFAULT;
   }

If the program has more than one subprograms, num_exentries is actually
0 since it is not setup.

This patch fixed the issue by setuping proper num_exentries for
each subprogram before calling jit function.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
---
  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 12 +++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 34cde841ab68..7d8b23ba825c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -9801,7 +9801,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
  	int i, j, subprog_start, subprog_end = 0, len, subprog;
  	struct bpf_insn *insn;
  	void *old_bpf_func;
-	int err;
+	int err, num_exentries;

  	if (env->subprog_cnt <= 1)
  		return 0;
@@ -9876,6 +9876,16 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
  		func[i]->aux->nr_linfo = prog->aux->nr_linfo;
  		func[i]->aux->jited_linfo = prog->aux->jited_linfo;
  		func[i]->aux->linfo_idx = env->subprog_info[i].linfo_idx;
+
+		num_exentries = 0;
+		insn = func[i]->insnsi;
+		for (j = 0; j < func[i]->len; j++, insn++) {
+			if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
+			    BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_PROBE_MEM)
+				num_exentries++;
+		}
+		func[i]->aux->num_exentries = num_exentries;
+
  		func[i] = bpf_int_jit_compile(func[i]);
  		if (!func[i]->jited) {
  			err = -ENOTSUPP;
-- 
2.24.1

================

We need this (or similar fixes) go in together with libbpf fix
to avoid bpf_iter_netlink.c test failure at jit only mode.

Do we need a separate patch for the above fix? Or Andrii can
fold this into his patch and resubmit? Maybe the latter is better.

> ---
>   tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c                               | 8 +++++++-
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c | 2 +-
>   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 477c679ed945..f17151d866e6 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -4818,7 +4818,13 @@ bpf_core_reloc_fields(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *targ_btf_path)
>   			err = -EINVAL;
>   			goto out;
>   		}
> -		prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_title(obj, sec_name);
> +		prog = NULL;
> +		for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_programs; i++) {
> +			if (!strcmp(obj->programs[i].section_name, sec_name)) {
> +				prog = &obj->programs[i];
> +				break;
> +			}
> +		}
>   		if (!prog) {
>   			pr_warn("failed to find program '%s' for CO-RE offset relocation\n",
>   				sec_name);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c
> index e7b8753eac0b..75ecf956a2df 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_netlink.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct bpf_iter__netlink {
>   	struct netlink_sock *sk;
>   } __attribute__((preserve_access_index));
>   
> -static inline struct inode *SOCK_INODE(struct socket *socket)
> +static __attribute__((noinline)) struct inode *SOCK_INODE(struct socket *socket)
>   {
>   	return &container_of(socket, struct socket_alloc, socket)->vfs_inode;
>   }
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists