netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't rely on GCC __attribute_

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]
Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:51:47 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't rely on GCC __attribute__((optimize)) to
 disable GCSE

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 00:04, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/20 9:57 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Commit 3193c0836f203 ("bpf: Disable GCC -fgcse optimization for
> > ___bpf_prog_run()") introduced a __no_fgcse macro that expands to a
> > function scope __attribute__((optimize("-fno-gcse"))), to disable a
> > GCC specific optimization that was causing trouble on x86 builds, and
> > was not expected to have any positive effect in the first place.
> >
> > However, as the GCC manual documents, __attribute__((optimize))
> > is not for production use, and results in all other optimization
> > options to be forgotten for the function in question. This can
> > cause all kinds of trouble, but in one particular reported case,
>
> Looks like there are couple more as well aside from __no_fgcse, are you
> also planning to fix them?
>
>    arch/powerpc/kernel/setup.h:14:#define __nostackprotector __attribute__((__optimize__("no-stack-protector")))
>    tools/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:37:#define __no_tail_call __attribute__((optimize("no-optimize-sibling-calls")))
>

No, but we can notify the respective maintainers.

> > it causes -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables to be disregarded,
> > resulting in .eh_frame info to be emitted for the function
> > inadvertently.
>
> Would have been useful to add a pointer to the original discussion with
> Link tag.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdUg0WJHEcq6to0-eODpXPOywLot6UD2=GFHpzoj_hCoBQ@mail.gmail.com/
>

Agreed.

> > This reverts commit 3193c0836f203, and instead, it disables the -fgcse
> > optimization for the entire source file, but only when building for
> > X86.
> >
> > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Fixes: 3193c0836f203 ("bpf: Disable GCC -fgcse optimization for ___bpf_prog_run()")
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/Makefile b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > index bdc8cd1b6767..02b58f44c479 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/Makefile
> > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
> >   # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >   obj-y := core.o
> > -CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init)
> > +# ___bpf_prog_run() needs GCSE disabled on x86; see 3193c0836f203 for details
> > +cflags-core-$(CONFIG_X86) := -fno-gcse
> > +CFLAGS_core.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, override-init) $(cflags-core-y)
>
> Also, this needs to be guarded behind !CONFIG_RETPOLINE and !CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON
> in particular the latter since only in this case interpreter is compiled in ... most
> distros have the CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON set these days for x86.
>

Is that a new requirement? Because before this patch, -fno-gcse was
applied unconditionally.

> Do you have an analysis for the commit log on what else this penalizes in core.c if
> it's now for the entire translation unit?
>

No, I simply observed the regression this caused on non-x86
architectures, and proposed a way to fix it.

Do you have any concerns in particular regarding other things in
core.c? Would you prefer ___bpf_prog_run() to be moved into a separate
.c file?


> >   obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += syscall.o verifier.o inode.o helpers.o tnum.o bpf_iter.o map_iter.o task_iter.o prog_iter.o
> >   obj-$(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) += hashtab.o arraymap.o percpu_freelist.o bpf_lru_list.o lpm_trie.o map_in_map.o
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > index 9268d77898b7..55454d2278b1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ u64 __weak bpf_probe_read_kernel(void *dst, u32 size, const void *unsafe_ptr)
> >    *
> >    * Decode and execute eBPF instructions.
> >    */
> > -static u64 __no_fgcse ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
> > +static u64 ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack)
> >   {
> >   #define BPF_INSN_2_LBL(x, y)    [BPF_##x | BPF_##y] = &&x##_##y
> >   #define BPF_INSN_3_LBL(x, y, z) [BPF_##x | BPF_##y | BPF_##z] = &&x##_##y##_##z
> >
>