netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, libbpf: guard bpf inline asm from bpf_tail_call

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

Message-ID: <0c4af0f3-2aee-52f3-e294-cfe047d017f7@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:49:46 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <yanivagman@...il.com>, <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, libbpf: guard bpf inline asm from
 bpf_tail_call_static



On 10/21/20 1:32 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Yaniv reported a compilation error after pulling latest libbpf:
> 
>    [...]
>    ../libbpf/src/root/usr/include/bpf/bpf_helpers.h:99:10: error:
>    unknown register name 'r0' in asm
>                       : "r0", "r1", "r2", "r3", "r4", "r5");
>    [...]
> 
> The issue got triggered given Yaniv was compiling tracing programs with native
> target (e.g. x86) instead of BPF target, hence no BTF generated vmlinux.h nor
> CO-RE used, and later llc with -march=bpf was invoked to compile from LLVM IR
> to BPF object file. Given that clang was expecting x86 inline asm and not BPF
> one the error complained that these regs don't exist on the former.
> 
> Guard bpf_tail_call_static() with defined(__bpf__) where BPF inline asm is valid
> to use. BPF tracing programs on more modern kernels use BPF target anyway and
> thus the bpf_tail_call_static() function will be available for them. BPF inline
> asm is supported since clang 7 (clang <= 6 otherwise throws same above error),
> and __bpf_unreachable() since clang 8, therefore include the latter condition
> in order to prevent compilation errors for older clang versions. Given even an
> old Ubuntu 18.04 LTS has official LLVM packages all the way up to llvm-10, I did
> not bother to special case the __bpf_unreachable() inside bpf_tail_call_static()
> further.
> 
> Fixes: 0e9f6841f664 ("bpf, libbpf: Add bpf_tail_call_static helper for bpf programs")
> Reported-by: Yaniv Agman <yanivagman@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAMy7=ZUk08w5Gc2Z-EKi4JFtuUCaZYmE4yzhJjrExXpYKR4L8w@mail.gmail.com

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