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]
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:09:54 +0300
From:   Martynas Pumputis <m@...bda.lt>
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Yutaro Hayakawa <yutaro.hayakawa@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: Fix kprobe get_func_ip
 tests for CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT



On 7/18/22 00:43, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 12:16:35AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 10:29:17PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 12:04 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The kprobe can be placed anywhere and user must be aware
>>>> of the underlying instructions. Therefore fixing just
>>>> the bpf program to 'fix' the address to match the actual
>>>> function address when CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
>>>> index a587aeca5ae0..220d56b7c1dc 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c
>>>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>>>   #include <linux/bpf.h>
>>>>   #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>>>>   #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>>>> +#include <stdbool.h>
>>>>
>>>>   char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>>>>
>>>> @@ -13,6 +14,8 @@ extern const void bpf_modify_return_test __ksym;
>>>>   extern const void bpf_fentry_test6 __ksym;
>>>>   extern const void bpf_fentry_test7 __ksym;
>>>>
>>>> +extern bool CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT __kconfig __weak;
>>>> +
>>>>   __u64 test1_result = 0;
>>>>   SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
>>>>   int BPF_PROG(test1, int a)
>>>> @@ -37,7 +40,7 @@ __u64 test3_result = 0;
>>>>   SEC("kprobe/bpf_fentry_test3")
>>>>   int test3(struct pt_regs *ctx)
>>>>   {
>>>> -       __u64 addr = bpf_get_func_ip(ctx);
>>>> +       __u64 addr = bpf_get_func_ip(ctx) - (CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT ? 4 : 0);
>>>
>>> so for kprobe bpf_get_func_ip() gets an address with 5 byte
>>> compensation for `call __fentry__`, but not for endr? Why can't we
>>> compensate for endbr inside the kernel code as well? I'd imagine we
>>> either do no compensation (and thus we get &bpf_fentry_test3+5 or
>>> &bpf_fentry_test3+9, depending on CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) or full
>>> compensation (and thus always get &bpf_fentry_test3), but this
>>> in-between solution seems to be the worst of both worlds?...
>>
>> hm rigth, I guess we should be able to do that in bpf_get_func_ip,
>> I'll check
> 
> sorry for late follow up..
> 
> so the problem is that you can place kprobe anywhere in the function
> (on instruction boundary) but the IBT adjustment of kprobe address is
> made only if it's at the function entry and there's endbr instruction

To add more fun to the issue, not all non-inlined functions get endbr64. 
For example "skb_release_head_state()" does, while "skb_free_head()" 
doesn't.

> 
> and that kprobe address is what we return in helper:
> 
>    BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_func_ip_kprobe, struct pt_regs *, regs)
>    {
>          struct kprobe *kp = kprobe_running();
> 
>          return kp ? (uintptr_t)kp->addr : 0;
>    }
> 
> so the adjustment would work only for address at function entry, but
> would be wrong for address within the function
> 
> perhaps we could add flag to kprobe to indicate the addr adjustment
> was done and use it in helper
> 
> but that's why I thought I'd keep bpf_get_func_ip_kprobe as it and
> leave it up to user
> 
> kprobe_multi and trampolines are different, because they can be
> only at the function entry, so we can adjust the ip properly
> 
> jirka

Powered by blists - more mailing lists