| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200915043924.uicfgbhuszccycbq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:39:24 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 7/7] selftests: bpf: add dummy prog for
bpf2bpf with tailcall
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:
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall6.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall6.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..e72ca5869b58
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall6.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > +
> > > +struct {
> > > + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
> > > + __uint(max_entries, 2);
> > > + __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
> > > + __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
> > > +} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
> > > +
> > > +#define TAIL_FUNC(x) \
> > > + SEC("classifier/" #x) \
> > > + int bpf_func_##x(struct __sk_buff *skb) \
> > > + { \
> > > + return x; \
> > > + }
> > > +TAIL_FUNC(0)
> > > +TAIL_FUNC(1)
> > > +
> > > +static __attribute__ ((noinline))
> > > +int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + bpf_tail_call(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
> > > +
> > > + return skb->len * 2;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +SEC("classifier")
> > > +int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + bpf_tail_call(skb, &jmp_table, 1);
> > > +
> > > + return subprog_tail(skb);
> > > +}
> >
> > 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.
> First thing that came out when I added the global variable to act as a
> counter in the tailcall3-like subprog-based test was the fact that when
> the patching happen, we need to update the index of tailcall insn that we
> store within the poke descriptor. Due to patching and insn not being
> adjusted, the poke descriptor was not propagated to subprogram and JIT
> started to fail.
>
> It's rather obvious change so I won't post it here to decrease the chaos
> in this response, but I simply teached bpf_patch_insn_data() to go over
> poke descriptors and update the insn_idx by given len. Will include in
> next revision.
+1
> Now onto serious stuff that I would like to discuss. Turns out that for
> tailcall3-like selftest:
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>
> struct {
> __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
> __uint(max_entries, 1);
> __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
> __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
> } jmp_table SEC(".maps");
>
> static __attribute__ ((noinline))
> int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> bpf_tail_call(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
> return 1;
> }
>
> SEC("classifier/0")
> int bpf_func_0(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> return subprog_tail(skb);
> }
>
> SEC("classifier")
> int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> {
> bpf_tail_call(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> int _version SEC("version") = 1;
>
> following asm was generated:
>
> entry:
> ffffffffa0ca0c40 <load4+0xca0c40>:
> ffffffffa0ca0c40: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> ffffffffa0ca0c45: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> ffffffffa0ca0c47: 55 push %rbp
> ffffffffa0ca0c48: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
> ffffffffa0ca0c4b: 48 81 ec 00 00 00 00 sub $0x0,%rsp
> ffffffffa0ca0c52: 50 push %rax
> ffffffffa0ca0c53: 48 be 00 6c b1 c1 81 movabs $0xffff8881c1b16c00,%rsi
> ffffffffa0ca0c5a: 88 ff ff
> ffffffffa0ca0c5d: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
> ffffffffa0ca0c5f: 8b 85 fc ff ff ff mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
> ffffffffa0ca0c65: 83 f8 20 cmp $0x20,%eax
> ffffffffa0ca0c68: 77 1b ja 0xffffffffa0ca0c85
> ffffffffa0ca0c6a: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax
> ffffffffa0ca0c6d: 89 85 fc ff ff ff mov %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
> ffffffffa0ca0c73: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> ffffffffa0ca0c78: 58 pop %rax
> ffffffffa0ca0c79: 48 81 c4 00 00 00 00 add $0x0,%rsp
> ffffffffa0ca0c80: e9 d2 b6 ff ff jmpq 0xffffffffa0c9c357
> ffffffffa0ca0c85: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> ffffffffa0ca0c87: 59 pop %rcx
> ffffffffa0ca0c88: c9 leaveq
> ffffffffa0ca0c89: c3 retq
>
> func0:
> ffffffffa0c9c34c <load4+0xc9c34c>:
> ffffffffa0c9c34c: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> ffffffffa0c9c351: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
> ffffffffa0c9c353: 55 push %rbp
> ffffffffa0c9c354: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
> ffffffffa0c9c357: 48 81 ec 00 00 00 00 sub $0x0,%rsp
> ffffffffa0c9c35e: e8 b1 20 00 00 callq 0xffffffffa0c9e414
> ffffffffa0c9c363: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> ffffffffa0c9c368: c9 leaveq
> ffffffffa0c9c369: c3 retq
>
> subprog_tail:
> ffffffffa0c9e414: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> ffffffffa0c9e419: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> ffffffffa0c9e41b: 55 push %rbp
> ffffffffa0c9e41c: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
> ffffffffa0c9e41f: 48 81 ec 00 00 00 00 sub $0x0,%rsp
> ffffffffa0c9e426: 50 push %rax
> ffffffffa0c9e427: 48 be 00 6c b1 c1 81 movabs $0xffff8881c1b16c00,%rsi
> ffffffffa0c9e42e: 88 ff ff
> ffffffffa0c9e431: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
> ffffffffa0c9e433: 8b 85 fc ff ff ff mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
> ffffffffa0c9e439: 83 f8 20 cmp $0x20,%eax
> ffffffffa0c9e43c: 77 1b ja 0xffffffffa0c9e459
> ffffffffa0c9e43e: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax
> ffffffffa0c9e441: 89 85 fc ff ff ff mov %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
> ffffffffa0c9e447: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> ffffffffa0c9e44c: 58 pop %rax
> ffffffffa0c9e44d: 48 81 c4 00 00 00 00 add $0x0,%rsp
> ffffffffa0c9e454: e9 fe de ff ff jmpq 0xffffffffa0c9c357
> ffffffffa0c9e459: 59 pop %rcx
> ffffffffa0c9e45a: c9 leaveq
> ffffffffa0c9e45b: c3 retq
>
> So this flow was doing:
> entry -> set tailcall counter to 0, bump it by 1, tailcall to func0
> func0 -> call subprog_tail
> (we are NOT skipping the first 11 bytes of prologue and this subprogram
> has a tailcall, therefore we clear the counter...)
> subprog -> do the same thing as entry
>
> and then loop forever. This shows that in our current design there's a
> missing gap of preserving the tailcall counter when bpf2bpf gets mixed
> with tailcalls.
>
> To address this, the idea is to go through the call chain of bpf2bpf progs
> and look for a tailcall presence throughout whole chain. If we saw a
> single tail call then each node in this call chain needs to be marked as
> as a subprog that can reach the tailcall. We would later feed the JIT with
> this info and:
> - set eax to 0 only when tailcall is reachable and this is the
> entry prog
> - if tailcall is reachable but there's no tailcall in insns of currently
> JITed prog then push rax anyway, so that it will be possible to
> propagate further down the call chain
> - finally if tailcall is reachable, then we need to precede the 'call'
> insn with mov rax, [rsp]
may be 'mov rax, [rbp - 4]' for consistency with other places
with it's read/written ?
> This way jumping to subprog results in tailcall counter sitting in rax and
> we will not clear it since it is a subprog.
>
> I think we can easily mark such progs after we reach the end of insn of
> current subprog in check_max_stack_depth().
>
> I'd like to share a dirty diff that I currently have so that it's easier
> to review this approach rather than finding the diff between revisions.
> It also includes the concern Alexei had on 5/7 (hopefully, if i understood
> it right):
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 58b848029e2f..ed03de3ba27b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void pop_callee_regs(u8 **pprog, bool *callee_regs_used)
> * while jumping to another program
> */
> static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> - bool tail_call)
> + bool tail_call, bool is_subprog, bool tcr)
> {
> u8 *prog = *pprog;
> int cnt = X86_PATCH_SIZE;
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> memcpy(prog, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], cnt);
> prog += cnt;
> if (!ebpf_from_cbpf) {
> - if (tail_call)
> + if ((tcr || tail_call) && !is_subprog)
please spell it out as 'tail_call_reachable'.
Also probably 'tail_call' argument is no longer needed.
> EMIT2(0x31, 0xC0); /* xor eax, eax */
> else
> EMIT2(0x66, 0x90); /* nop2 */
> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static void emit_prologue(u8 **pprog, u32 stack_depth, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> EMIT3(0x48, 0x89, 0xE5); /* mov rbp, rsp */
> /* sub rsp, rounded_stack_depth */
> EMIT3_off32(0x48, 0x81, 0xEC, round_up(stack_depth, 8));
> - if (!ebpf_from_cbpf && tail_call)
> + if ((!ebpf_from_cbpf && tail_call) || tcr)
May be do 'if (tail_call_reachable)' ?
cbpf doesn't have tail_calls, so ebpf_from_cbpf is unnecessary.
> EMIT1(0x50); /* push rax */
> *pprog = prog;
> }
> @@ -793,7 +793,9 @@ static int do_jit(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog, int *addrs, u8 *image,
> &tail_call_seen);
>
> emit_prologue(&prog, bpf_prog->aux->stack_depth,
> - bpf_prog_was_classic(bpf_prog), tail_call_seen);
> + bpf_prog_was_classic(bpf_prog), tail_call_seen,
> + bpf_prog->aux->is_subprog,
> + bpf_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable);
> push_callee_regs(&prog, callee_regs_used);
> addrs[0] = prog - temp;
>
> @@ -1232,8 +1234,14 @@ xadd: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> /* call */
> case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
> func = (u8 *) __bpf_call_base + imm32;
> - if (!imm32 || emit_call(&prog, func, image + addrs[i - 1]))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (bpf_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable) {
> + EMIT4(0x48, 0x8B, 0x04, 0x24); // mov rax, [rsp]
[rbp-4] ?
> + if (!imm32 || emit_call(&prog, func, image + addrs[i - 1] + 4))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + } else {
> + if (!imm32 || emit_call(&prog, func, image + addrs[i - 1]))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> break;
>
> case BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL:
> @@ -1429,7 +1437,9 @@ xadd: if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> /* Update cleanup_addr */
> ctx->cleanup_addr = proglen;
> pop_callee_regs(&prog, callee_regs_used);
> - if (!bpf_prog_was_classic(bpf_prog) && tail_call_seen)
> + if ((!bpf_prog_was_classic(bpf_prog) && tail_call_seen) ||
> + bpf_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable)
bpf_prog_was_classic() check is redundant?
Just 'if (bpf_prog->aux->tail_call_reachable)' should be enough?
> +
> EMIT1(0x59); /* pop rcx, get rid of tail_call_cnt */
> EMIT1(0xC9); /* leave */
> EMIT1(0xC3); /* ret */
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> index 7910b87e4ea2..d41e08fbb85f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -740,6 +740,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux {
> bool attach_btf_trace; /* true if attaching to BTF-enabled raw tp */
> bool func_proto_unreliable;
> bool sleepable;
> + bool is_subprog;
why?
aux->func_idx != 0 would do the same.
> + bool tail_call_reachable;
> enum bpf_tramp_prog_type trampoline_prog_type;
> struct bpf_trampoline *trampoline;
> struct hlist_node tramp_hlist;
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> index 5026b75db972..fbc964526ba3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> @@ -359,6 +359,7 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
> u32 linfo_idx; /* The idx to the main_prog->aux->linfo */
> u16 stack_depth; /* max. stack depth used by this function */
> bool has_tail_call;
> + bool tail_call_reachable;
> };
>
> /* single container for all structs
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index deb6bf3d9f5d..3a7ebcdf076e 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1490,12 +1490,13 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
> u8 code = insn[i].code;
>
> - if (insn[i].imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call)
> - subprog[cur_subprog].has_tail_call = true;
> if (BPF_CLASS(code) != BPF_JMP && BPF_CLASS(code) != BPF_JMP32)
> goto next;
> if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_EXIT || BPF_OP(code) == BPF_CALL)
> goto next;
> + if ((code == (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) &&
> + insn[i].imm == BPF_FUNC_tail_call)
&& insn->src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_CALL is still missing.
> + subprog[cur_subprog].has_tail_call = true;
> off = i + insn[i].off + 1;
> if (off < subprog_start || off >= subprog_end) {
> verbose(env, "jump out of range from insn %d to %d\n", i, off);
> @@ -2983,6 +2984,8 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi;
> int ret_insn[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
> int ret_prog[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
> + bool tcr;
how does it work?
Shouldn't it be inited to = false; ?
> + int j;
>
> process_func:
> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON)
> @@ -3039,6 +3042,10 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> i);
> return -EFAULT;
> }
> +
> + if (!tcr && subprog[idx].has_tail_call)
> + tcr = true;
> +
> frame++;
> if (frame >= MAX_CALL_FRAMES) {
> verbose(env, "the call stack of %d frames is too deep !\n",
> @@ -3047,11 +3054,24 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> }
> goto process_func;
> }
> + /* this means we are at the end of the call chain; if throughout this
In my mind 'end of the call chain' means 'leaf function',
so the comment reads a bit misleading to me.
Here we're at the end of subprog.
It's not necessarily the leaf function.
> + * whole call chain tailcall has been detected, then each of the
> + * subprogs (or their frames) that are currently present on stack need
> + * to be marked as tail call reachable subprogs;
> + * this info will be utilized by JIT so that we will be preserving the
> + * tail call counter throughout bpf2bpf calls combined with tailcalls
> + */
> + if (!tcr)
> + goto skip;
> + for (j = 0; j < frame; j++)
> + subprog[ret_prog[j]].tail_call_reachable = true;
> +skip:
please avoid goto. Just extra indent isn't that bad:
if (tail_call_reachable)
for (j = 0; j < frame; j++)
subprog[ret_prog[j]].tail_call_reachable = true;
> /* end of for() loop means the last insn of the 'subprog'
> * was reached. Doesn't matter whether it was JA or EXIT
> */
> if (frame == 0)
> return 0;
> +
no need.
> depth -= round_up(max_t(u32, subprog[idx].stack_depth, 1), 32);
> frame--;
> i = ret_insn[frame];
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Having this in place preserves the tailcall counter when we mix bpf2bpf
> and tailcalls. I will attach the selftest that has a following call chain:
>
> entry -> entry_subprog -> tailcall0 -> bpf_func0 -> subprog0 ->
> -> tailcall1 -> bpf_func1 -> subprog1 -> tailcall2 -> bpf_func2 ->
> subprog2 [here bump global counter] --------^
>
> We go through first two tailcalls and start counting from the subprog2
> where the loop begins. At the end of the test i see that global counter
> gets the value of 31 which is correct.
sounds great.
> For the test that uses lot of stack across subprogs - i suppose we should
> use up to 256 in total, right? otherwise we wouldn't even load the prog so
> test won't even run.
yep. makes sense to me.
> Kudos to Bjorn for brainstorming on this!
Indeed. It's pretty cool problem and I think you've came up with
a good solution.
Since this tail_call_cnt will now be passed from subprog to subrpog via
"interesting" rax calling convention we can eventually retrofit it to count
used-stack-so-far. That would be for the case we discussed earlier (counting
stack vs counting calls). For now the approach you're proposing is good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists