netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: use NOP_ATOMIC5 instead of emit_nops(&prog, 5) for BPF_TRAMP_F_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: <CAKH8qBsdJak0eO_zsuzAyNmSkVtR99ZAgGgP=j8mtAn9CvZ58g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:40:42 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: use NOP_ATOMIC5 instead of emit_nops(&prog, 5)
 for BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:33 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:25 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:00 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > __bpf_arch_text_poke does rewrite only for atomic nop5, emit_nops(xxx, 5)
> > > > emits non-atomic one which breaks fentry/fexit with k8 atomics:
> > > >
> > > > P6_NOP5 == P6_NOP5_ATOMIC (0f1f440000 == 0f1f440000)
> > > > K8_NOP5 != K8_NOP5_ATOMIC (6666906690 != 6666666690)
> > > >
> > > > Can be reproduced by doing "ideal_nops = k8_nops" in "arch_init_ideal_nops()
> > > > and running fexit_bpf2bpf selftest.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: e21aa341785c ("bpf: Fix fexit trampoline.")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > index 72b5a57e9e31..b35fc8023884 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > > @@ -2012,7 +2012,8 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *image, void *i
> > > >                 /* remember return value in a stack for bpf prog to access */
> > > >                 emit_stx(&prog, BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, BPF_REG_0, -8);
> > > >                 im->ip_after_call = prog;
> > > > -               emit_nops(&prog, 5);
> > > > +               memcpy(prog, ideal_nops[NOP_ATOMIC5], X86_PATCH_SIZE);
> > > > +               prog += X86_PATCH_SIZE;
> > >
> > > I'm well aware, but ideal_nops are pretty much gone already.
> > > The changes are already in the -tip tree.
> > > So I decided to reduce the conflicts for the merge window.
> > >
> > > Do you actually see the breakage or it's purely theoretical?
> > We do see it, but it's on our tree that pulls from bpf.
> > And it obviously doesn't have that "x86: Remove dynamic NOP selection" yet.
> > Thanks for the pointer, I guess I can just wait for the real merge then.
>
> If it breaks the real users we have to land the fix, but let me ask how
> come that you run with k8 cpu? k8 does other nasty things.
> Do you run with all of amd errata?
It's not amd, it's intel:

cpu family      : 6
model           : 45
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2689 0 @ 2.60GHz

I think I'm hitting the following from the arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:

/*
* Due to a decoder implementation quirk, some
* specific Intel CPUs actually perform better with
* the "k8_nops" than with the SDM-recommended NOPs.
*/
if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 6 &&
   boot_cpu_data.x86_model >= 0x0f &&
   boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x1c &&
   boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x26 &&
   boot_cpu_data.x86_model != 0x27 &&
   boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 0x30) {
ideal_nops = k8_nops;