netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 7/7] selftests: bpf: add dummy prog for bpf2bpf with tailcall

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ed704e11-3399-135d-0bab-8699ef2e85e8@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:10:55 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 7/7] selftests: bpf: add dummy prog for
 bpf2bpf with tailcall

On 9/15/20 5:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:03 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/15/20 6:39 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 08:59:27PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:51:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:08:15PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> Could you add few more tests to exercise the new feature more thoroughly?
>>>>> Something like tailcall3.c that checks 32 limit, but doing tail_call from subprog.
>>>>> And another test that consume non-trival amount of stack in each function.
>>>>> Adding 'volatile char arr[128] = {};' would do the trick.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another prolonged silence from my side, but not without a reason -
>>>> this request opened up a Pandora's box.
>>>
>>> Great catch and thanks to our development practices! As a community we should
>>> remember this lesson and request selftests more often than not.
>>
>> +1, speaking of pandora ... ;-) I recently noticed that we also have the legacy
>> ld_abs/ld_ind instructions. Right now check_ld_abs() gates them by bailing out
>> if env->subprog_cnt > 1, but that doesn't solve everything given the prog itself
>> may not have bpf2bpf calls, but it could get tail-called out of a subprog. We
>> need to reject such cases (& add selftests for it), otherwise this would be a
>> verifier bypass given they may implicitly exit the program (and then mismatch
>> the return type that the verifier was expecting).
> 
> Good point. I think it's easier to allow ld_abs though.
> The comment in check_ld_abs() is obsolete after gen_ld_abs() was added.
> The verifier needs to check that subprog that is doing ld_abs or tail_call
> has 'int' return type and check_reference_leak() doesn't error before
> ld_abs and before bpf_tail_call.

Agree, sub prog 'int' return type is also currently the only option for tail call
progs anyway w/o bigger rework in verifier to track signatures.