netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] bpf: Use 64-bit return value for bpf_prog

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 01:09:11 +0530
From:   Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] bpf: Use 64-bit return value for
 bpf_prog_run

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:39:04PM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 6:07 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
> >
> > BPF ABI always uses 64-bit return value, but so far __bpf_prog_run and
> > higher level wrappers always truncated the return value to 32-bit. We
> > want to be able to introduce a new BPF program type that returns a
> > PTR_TO_BTF_ID or NULL from the BPF program to the caller context in the
> > kernel. To be able to use this returned pointer value, the bpf_prog_run
> > invocation needs to be able to return a 64-bit value, so update the
> > definitions to allow this.
>
> ...
>
> > -static __always_inline u32 __bpf_prog_run(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > +static __always_inline u64 __bpf_prog_run(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> >                                           const void *ctx,
> >                                           bpf_dispatcher_fn dfunc)
> >  {
> > -       u32 ret;
> > +       u64 ret;
> >
> >         cant_migrate();
> >         if (static_branch_unlikely(&bpf_stats_enabled_key)) {
> > @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ static __always_inline u32 __bpf_prog_run(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > -static __always_inline u32 bpf_prog_run(const struct bpf_prog *prog, const void *ctx)
> > +static __always_inline u64 bpf_prog_run(const struct bpf_prog *prog, const void *ctx)
> >  {
> >         return __bpf_prog_run(prog, ctx, bpf_dispatcher_nop_func);
> >  }
>
> I suspect 32-bit archs with JITs are partially broken with this change.
> As long as progs want to return pointers it's ok, but actual
> 64-bit values will be return garbage in upper 32-bit, since 32-bit
> JITs won't populate the upper bits.
> I don't think changing u32->long retval is a good idea either,
> since BPF ISA has to be stable regardless of underlying arch.
> The u32->u64 transition is good long term, but let's add
> full 64-bit tests to lib/test_bpf and fix JITs.
>

I will resubmit with these tests and revisiting the 32-bit JITs (but it will
take some time, since my backlog is full).