| 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: <87fsoakjj6.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:53:00 +0100
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
kernel-team@...udflare.com,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix implementation-defined
behavior in sk_lookup test
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 03:22 AM +01, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 01:43 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 22:39 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2022-02-21 at 19:03 +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> > > Shifting 16-bit type by 16 bits is implementation-defined for BPF
>> > > programs.
>> > > Don't rely on it in case it is causing the test failures we are
>> > > seeing on
>> > > s390x z15 target.
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: 2ed0dc5937d3 ("selftests/bpf: Cover 4-byte load from
>> > > remote_port in bpf_sk_lookup")
>> > > Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > I don't have a dev env for s390x/z15 set up yet, so can't
>> > > definitely
>> > > confirm the fix.
>> > > That said, it seems worth fixing either way.
>> > >
>> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c | 3 ++-
>> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
>> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
>> > > index bf5b7caefdd0..7d47276a8964 100644
>> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
>> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sk_lookup.c
>> > > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ static const __u32 KEY_SERVER_A = SERVER_A;
>> > > static const __u32 KEY_SERVER_B = SERVER_B;
>> > >
>> > > static const __u16 SRC_PORT = bpf_htons(8008);
>> > > +static const __u32 SRC_PORT_U32 = bpf_htonl(8008U << 16);
>> > > static const __u32 SRC_IP4 = IP4(127, 0, 0, 2);
>> > > static const __u32 SRC_IP6[] = IP6(0xfd000000, 0x0, 0x0,
>> > > 0x00000002);
>> > >
>> > > @@ -421,7 +422,7 @@ int ctx_narrow_access(struct bpf_sk_lookup
>> > > *ctx)
>> > >
>> > > /* Load from remote_port field with zero padding
>> > > (backward
>> > > compatibility) */
>> > > val_u32 = *(__u32 *)&ctx->remote_port;
>> > > - if (val_u32 != bpf_htonl(bpf_ntohs(SRC_PORT) << 16))
>> > > + if (val_u32 != SRC_PORT_U32)
>> > > return SK_DROP;
>> > >
>> > > /* Narrow loads from local_port field. Expect DST_PORT.
>> > > */
>> >
>> > Unfortunately this doesn't help with the s390 problem.
>> > I'll try to debug this.
>>
>> I have to admit I have a hard time wrapping my head around the
>> requirements here.
>>
>> Based on the pre-9a69e2b385f4 code, do I understand correctly that
>> for the following input
>>
>> Port: 0x1f48
>> SRC_PORT: 0x481f
>>
>> we expect the following results for different kinds of loads:
>>
>> Size Offset LE BE
>> BPF_B 0 0x1f 0
>> BPF_B 1 0x48 0
>> BPF_B 2 0 0x48
>> BPF_B 3 0 0x1f
>> BPF_H 0 0x481f 0
>> BPF_H 1 0 0x481f
>> BPF_W 0 0x481f 0x481f
>>
>> and this is guaranteed by the struct bpf_sk_lookup ABI? Because then
>> it
>> looks as if 9a69e2b385f4 breaks it on big-endian as follows:
>>
>> Size Offset BE-9a69e2b385f4
>> BPF_B 0 0x48
>> BPF_B 1 0x1f
>> BPF_B 2 0
>> BPF_B 3 0
>> BPF_H 0 0x481f
>> BPF_H 1 0
>> BPF_W 0 0x481f0000
>
> Sorry, I worded this incorrectly: 9a69e2b385f4 did not change the
> kernel behavior, the ABI is not broken and the old compiled code should
> continue to work.
> What the second table really shows are what the results should be
> according to the 9a69e2b385f4 struct bpf_sk_lookup definition, which I
> still think is broken on big-endian and needs to be adjusted to match
> the ABI.
>
> I noticed one other strange thing in the meantime: loads from
> *(__u32 *)&ctx->remote_port, *(__u16 *)&ctx->remote_port and
> *((__u16 *)&ctx->remote_port + 1) all produce 8008 on s390, which is
> clearly inconsistent. It looks as if convert_ctx_accesses() needs to be
> adjusted to handle combinations like ctx_field_size == 4 && size == 2
> && target_size == 2. I will continue with this tomorrow.
>
>> Or is the old behavior a bug and this new one is desirable?
>> 9a69e2b385f4 has no Fixes: tag, so I assume that's the former :-(
>>
>> In which case, would it make sense to fix it by swapping remote_port
>> and :16 in bpf_sk_lookup on big-endian?
Thanks for looking into it.
When it comes to requirements, my intention was to keep the same
behavior as before the split up of the remote_port field in 9a69e2b385f4
("bpf: Make remote_port field in struct bpf_sk_lookup 16-bit wide").
9a69e2b385f4 was supposed to be a formality, after a similar change in
4421a582718a ("bpf: Make dst_port field in struct bpf_sock 16-bit
wide"), which went in earlier.
In 4421a582718a I've provided a bit more context. I understand that the
remote_port value, even before the type changed from u32 to u16,
appeared to the BPF program as if laid out in memory like so:
offsetof(struct bpf_sk_lookup, remote_port) +0 <port MSB>
+1 <port LSB>
+2 0x00
+3 0x00
Translating it to your handy table format, I expect should result in
loads as so if port is 8008 = 0x1f48:
Size Offset LE BE
BPF_B 0 0x1f 0x1f
BPF_B 1 0x48 0x48
BPF_B 2 0 0
BPF_B 3 0 0
BPF_H 0 0x481f 0x1f48
BPF_H 1 0 0
BPF_W 0 0x481f 0x1f480000
But since the fix does not work, there must be a mistake somewhere in my
reasoning.
I expect I should be able to get virtme for s390 working sometime this
week to check my math. I've seen your collegue had some luck with it
[1].
Looking forward to your findings.
[1] https://github.com/cilium/ebpf/issues/86#issuecomment-623945549
Powered by blists - more mailing lists