netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: ignore .eh_frame sections when parsing elf files

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: <87k0m3y815.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Tue, 06 Jul 2021 13:51:50 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: ignore .eh_frame sections when parsing
 elf files

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:

> On 7/5/21 12:33 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>>> On 6/29/21 1:09 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> The .eh_frame and .rel.eh_frame sections will be present in BPF object
>>>> files when compiled using a multi-stage compile pipe like in samples/bpf.
>>>> This produces errors when loading such a file with libbpf. While the errors
>>>> are technically harmless, they look odd and confuse users. So add .eh_frame
>>>> sections to is_sec_name_dwarf() so they will also be ignored by libbpf
>>>> processing. This gets rid of output like this from samples/bpf:
>>>>
>>>> libbpf: elf: skipping unrecognized data section(32) .eh_frame
>>>> libbpf: elf: skipping relo section(33) .rel.eh_frame for section(32) .eh_frame
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> For the samples/bpf case, could we instead just add a -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
>>> to clang as cflags to avoid .eh_frame generation in the first place?
>> 
>> Ah, great suggestion! Was trying, but failed, to figure out how to do
>> that. Just tested it, and yeah, that does fix samples; will send a
>> separate patch to add that.
>
> Sounds good, just applied.

Awesome, thanks!

>> I still think filtering this section name in libbpf is worthwhile,
>> though, as the error message is really just noise... WDYT?
>
> No strong opinion from my side, I can also see the argument that
> Andrii made some time ago [0] in that normally you should never see
> these in a BPF object file. But then ... there's BPF samples giving a
> wrong sample. ;( And I bet some users might have copied from there,
> and it's generally confusing from a user experience in libbpf on
> whether it's harmless or not.

Yeah, they "shouldn't" be there, but they clearly can be. So given that
it's pretty trivial to filter it, IMO, that would be the friendly thing
to do. Let's see what Andrii thinks.

> Side-question: Did you check if it is still necessary in general to
> have this multi-stage compile pipe in samples with the native clang
> frontend invocation (instead of bpf target one)? (Maybe it's time to
> get rid of it in general.)

I started looking into this, but chickened out of actually changing it.
The comment above the rule mentions LLVM 12, so it seems like it has
been updated fairly recently, specifically in:
9618bde489b2 ("samples/bpf: Change Makefile to cope with latest llvm")

OTOH, that change does seem to be a fix to the native-compilation mode;
so maybe it would be viable to just change it to straight bpf-target
clang compilation? Yonghong, any opinion?

> Anyway, would be nice to add further context/description about it to
> the commit message at least for future reference on what the .eh_frame
> sections contain exactly and why it's harmless. (Right now it only
> states that it is but without more concrete rationale, would be good
> to still add.)

Sure, can add that and send a v2 :)

-Toke