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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:24:07 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <>
To:     Xi Wang <>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>,
        Will Deacon <>,,,,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <>,
        Yauheni Kaliuta <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Zi Shen Lim <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        John Fastabend <>,
        KP Singh <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>,,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Anders Roxell <>,
        Björn Töpel <>,
        Luke Nelson <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:52:16AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> <> wrote:
> > Even if that's true, is any reason at all why we should skip the first element
> > of the array, that's now needed since 7c2e988f400 to jump back to the first
> > instruction?
> > Introducing 2 extra if conditions and hotfix the array on the fly (and for
> > every future invocation of that), seems better to you?
> My point was that there's no inherently correct/wrong way to construct
> offsets.  As Luke explained in his email, 1) there are two different
> strategies used by the JITs and 2) there are likely similar bugs
> beyond arm64.
> Each strategy has pros and cons, and I'm fine with either.  I like the
> strategy used in your patch because it's more intuitive (offset[i] is
> the start of the emitted instructions for BPF instruction i, rather
> than the end), though the changes to the construction process are
> trickier.

Well the arm64 was literally a 'save the idx before building the instruction',
and add another element on the array.  So it's not that trickier, especially
if we document it properly.

I haven't checked the rest of the architectures tbh (apart from x86). 
I assumed the tracking used in arm64 at that point, was a result of how 
eBPF worked before bounded loops were introduced. Maybe I was wrong.
It felt a bit more natural to track the beginning of the emitted 
instructions rather than the end.

> If we decide to patch the arm64 JIT the way you proposed, we should
> consider whether to change other JITs consistently.

I think this is a good idea. Following the code is not exactly a stroll in the
park, so we can at least make it consistent across architectures.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists