| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:02:52 +0200
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
kernel-team@...udflare.com,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Subject: [RFC bpf] selftests/bpf: Curious case of a successful tailcall that returns to caller
While working aarch64 JIT to allow mixing bpf2bpf calls with tailcalls, I
noticed unexpected tailcall behavior in x86 JIT.
I don't know if it is by design or a bug. The bpf_tail_call helper
documentation says that the user should not expect the control flow to
return to the previous program, if the tail call was successful:
> If the call succeeds, the kernel immediately runs the first
> instruction of the new program. This is not a function call,
> and it never returns to the previous program.
However, when a tailcall happens from a subprogram, that is after a bpf2bpf
call, that is not the case. We return to the caller program because the
stack destruction is too shallow. BPF stack of just the top-most BPF
function gets destroyed.
This in turn allows the return value of the tailcall'ed program to get
overwritten, as the test below test demonstrates. It currently fails on
x86:
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:open and load 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:entry prog fd 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:jmp_table map fd 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:classifier_0 prog fd 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:jmp_table map update 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:entry prog test run 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:FAIL:tailcall retval unexpected tailcall retval: actual 2 != expected 0
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:bss map fd 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:bss map lookup 0 nsec
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7:PASS:done flag is set 0 nsec
If we step through the program, we can observe the flow as so:
int entry(struct __sk_buff * skb):
bpf_prog_3bb007ac57240471_entry:
; subprog_tail(skb);
0: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
5: xor %eax,%eax
7: push %rbp
8: mov %rsp,%rbp
b: push %rax
c: mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax
13: call 0x0000000000000048 ---------.
; return 2; |
18: mov $0x2,%eax <--------------------------------------.
1d: leave | |
1e: ret | |
| |
int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff * skb): | |
bpf_prog_3a140cef239a4b4f_F: | |
; int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb) | |
0: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) <----------' |
5: xchg %ax,%ax |
7: push %rbp |
8: mov %rsp,%rbp |
b: push %rax |
c: push %rbx |
d: push %r13 |
f: mov %rdi,%rbx |
; asm volatile("r1 = %[ctx]\n\t" |
12: movabs $0xffff888104119000,%r13 |
1c: mov %rbx,%rdi |
1f: mov %r13,%rsi |
22: xor %edx,%edx |
24: mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax |
2a: cmp $0x21,%eax |
2d: jae 0x0000000000000046 |
2f: add $0x1,%eax |
32: mov %eax,-0x4(%rbp) |
38: jmp 0x0000000000000046 ---------------------------. |
3d: pop %r13 | |
3f: pop %rbx | |
40: pop %rax | |
41: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) | |
; return 1; | |
46: pop %r13 | |
48: pop %rbx | |
49: leave | |
4a: ret | |
| |
int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff * skb): | |
bpf_prog_6e664b22811ace0d_classifier_0: | |
; done = 1; | |
0: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) | |
5: xchg %ax,%ax | |
7: push %rbp | |
8: mov %rsp,%rbp | |
b: movabs $0xffffc900000b6000,%rdi <--------------------' |
15: mov $0x1,%esi |
1a: mov %esi,0x0(%rdi) |
; return 0; |
1d: xor %eax,%eax |
1f: leave |
20: ret ----------------------------------------------------'
My question is - is it a bug or intended behavior that other JITs should
replicate?
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf7.c | 37 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 92 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf7.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
index c4da87ec3ba4..696c307a1bee 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
@@ -831,6 +831,59 @@ static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(bool noise)
bpf_object__close(obj);
}
+#include "tailcall_bpf2bpf7.skel.h"
+
+/* The tail call should never return to the previous program, if the
+ * jump was successful.
+ */
+static void test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_bpf2bpf7 *obj;
+ int err, map_fd, prog_fd, main_fd, data_fd, i, val;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
+ .data_in = &pkt_v4,
+ .data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ .repeat = 1,
+ );
+
+ obj = tailcall_bpf2bpf7__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(obj, "open and load"))
+ return;
+
+ main_fd = bpf_program__fd(obj->progs.entry);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(main_fd, 0, "entry prog fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ map_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.jmp_table);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "jmp_table map fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(obj->progs.classifier_0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "classifier_0 prog fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "jmp_table map update"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(main_fd, &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "entry prog test run");
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "tailcall retval");
+
+ data_fd = bpf_map__fd(obj->maps.bss);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "bss map fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ i = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(data_fd, &i, &val);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "bss map lookup");
+ ASSERT_EQ(val, 1, "done flag is set");
+
+out:
+ tailcall_bpf2bpf7__destroy(obj);
+}
+
void test_tailcalls(void)
{
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_1"))
@@ -855,4 +908,6 @@ void test_tailcalls(void)
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(false);
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_5"))
test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_4(true);
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_bpf2bpf_7"))
+ test_tailcall_bpf2bpf_7();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf7.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf7.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1be27cfa1702
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf7.c
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+
+#define __unused __attribute__((always_unused))
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} jmp_table SEC(".maps");
+
+int done = 0;
+
+SEC("tc")
+int classifier_0(struct __sk_buff *skb __unused)
+{
+ done = 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static __noinline
+int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int entry(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ subprog_tail(skb);
+ return 2;
+}
+
+char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.35.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists