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  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:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:01:15 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ardb@...nel.org, naresh.kamboju@...aro.org,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT

Hi Ilias,

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:

[...]

> > > > The reason seems to be the offset[] creation and usage ctx->offset[]
> > > 
> > > "seems to be"? Are you unsure?
> > 
> > Reading the history and other ports of the JIT implementation, I couldn't 
> > tell if the decision on skipping the 1st entry was deliberate or not on 
> > Aarch64. Reading through the mailist list didn't help either [1].
> > Skipping the 1st entry seems indeed to cause the problem.
> > I did run the patch though the BPF tests and showed no regressions + fixing 
> > the error.
> 
> I'll correct myself here.
> Looking into 7c2e988f400e ("bpf: fix x64 JIT code generation for jmp to 1st insn")
> explains things a bit better.
> Jumping back to the 1st insn wasn't allowed until eBPF bounded loops were 
> introduced. That's what the 1st instruction was not saved in the original code.
> 
> > > 
> > > No Fixes: tag?
> > 
> > I'll re-spin and apply one 
> > 
> Any suggestion on any Fixes I should apply? The original code was 'correct' and
> broke only when bounded loops and their self-tests were introduced.

Ouch, that's pretty bad as it means nobody is regression testing BPF on
arm64 with mainline. Damn.

The Fixes: tag should identify the commit beyond which we don't need to
backport the fix, so it sounds like introduction of bounded loops, according
to your analysis.

Will

Powered by blists - more mailing lists