| 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: <20211030151230.bkp7gvuugcjw7q6g@apollo.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 20:42:30 +0530
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/8] libbpf: Add weak ksym support to
gen_loader
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 05:52:44AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:04:56PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > This extends existing ksym relocation code to also support relocating
> > weak ksyms. Care needs to be taken to zero out the src_reg (currently
> > BPF_PSEUOD_BTF_ID, always set for gen_loader by bpf_object__relocate_data)
> > when the BTF ID lookup fails at runtime. This is not a problem for
> > libbpf as it only sets ext->is_set when BTF ID lookup succeeds (and only
> > proceeds in case of failure if ext->is_weak, leading to src_reg
> > remaining as 0 for weak unresolved ksym).
> >
> > A pattern similar to emit_relo_kfunc_btf is followed of first storing
> > the default values and then jumping over actual stores in case of an
> > error. For src_reg adjustment, we also need to perform it when copying
> > the populated instruction, so depending on if copied insn[0].imm is 0 or
> > not, we decide to jump over the adjustment.
> >
> > We cannot reach that point unless the ksym was weak and resolved and
> > zeroed out, as the emit_check_err will cause us to jump to cleanup
> > label, so we do not need to recheck whether the ksym is weak before
> > doing the adjustment after copying BTF ID and BTF FD.
> >
> > This is consistent with how libbpf relocates weak ksym. Logging
> > statements are added to show the relocation result and aid debugging.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/gen_loader.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/gen_loader.c b/tools/lib/bpf/gen_loader.c
> > index 11172a868180..1c404752e565 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/gen_loader.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/gen_loader.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > #include "hashmap.h"
> > #include "bpf_gen_internal.h"
> > #include "skel_internal.h"
> > +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> >
> > #define MAX_USED_MAPS 64
> > #define MAX_USED_PROGS 32
> > @@ -776,12 +777,24 @@ static void emit_relo_ksym_typeless(struct bpf_gen *gen,
> > emit_ksym_relo_log(gen, relo, kdesc->ref);
> > }
> >
> > +static __u32 src_reg_mask(void)
> > +{
> > +#if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> > + return 0x0f; /* src_reg,dst_reg,... */
> > +#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> > + return 0xf0; /* dst_reg,src_reg,... */
> > +#else
> > +#error "Unsupported bit endianness, cannot proceed"
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Expects:
> > * BPF_REG_8 - pointer to instruction
> > */
> > static void emit_relo_ksym_btf(struct bpf_gen *gen, struct ksym_relo_desc *relo, int insn)
> > {
> > struct ksym_desc *kdesc;
> > + __u32 reg_mask;
> >
> > kdesc = get_ksym_desc(gen, relo);
> > if (!kdesc)
> > @@ -792,19 +805,35 @@ static void emit_relo_ksym_btf(struct bpf_gen *gen, struct ksym_relo_desc *relo,
> > kdesc->insn + offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm));
> > move_blob2blob(gen, insn + sizeof(struct bpf_insn) + offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm), 4,
> > kdesc->insn + sizeof(struct bpf_insn) + offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm));
> > - goto log;
> > + emit(gen, BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_8, offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm)));
>
> Thanks a lot for working on this. I've applied the set.
>
> The above load is redundant, right? BPF_REG_0 already has that value
> and could have been used in the JNE below, right?
>
Hm, true, we could certainly avoid another load here.
> > + /* jump over src_reg adjustment if imm is not 0 */
> > + emit(gen, BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_9, 0, 3));
> > + goto clear_src_reg;
>
> Is there a test for this part of the code?
> It's only for weak && unresolved && multi referenced ksym, right?
Correct.
> Or bpf_link_fops2 test_ksyms_weak.c fits this category?
>
Yes, the result of relocation is as follows (t=0 means typed, w=1 means weak):
find_by_name_kind(bpf_link_fops2,14) r=-2
var t=0 w=1 (bpf_link_fops2:count=1): imm[0]: 0, imm[1]: 0
var t=0 w=1 (bpf_link_fops2:count=1): insn.reg r=1
// goto clear_src_reg happens for this one
var t=0 w=1 (bpf_link_fops2:count=2): imm[0]: 0, imm[1]: 0
var t=0 w=1 (bpf_link_fops2:count=2): insn.reg r=1
> > }
> > /* remember insn offset, so we can copy BTF ID and FD later */
> > kdesc->insn = insn;
> > emit_bpf_find_by_name_kind(gen, relo);
> > - emit_check_err(gen);
> > + if (!relo->is_weak)
> > + emit_check_err(gen);
> > + /* set default values as 0 */
> > + emit(gen, BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_8, offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm), 0));
> > + emit(gen, BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_8, sizeof(struct bpf_insn) + offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm), 0));
> > + /* skip success case stores if ret < 0 */
> > + emit(gen, BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLT, BPF_REG_7, 0, 4));
> > /* store btf_id into insn[insn_idx].imm */
> > emit(gen, BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_7, offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm)));
> > /* store btf_obj_fd into insn[insn_idx + 1].imm */
> > emit(gen, BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_7, 32));
> > emit(gen, BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_7,
> > sizeof(struct bpf_insn) + offsetof(struct bpf_insn, imm)));
>
> The double store (first with zeros and then with real values) doesn't look pretty.
> I think an extra jump over two stores would have been cleaner.
I will address all your (and Andrii's) points in another patch.
--
Kartikeya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists