netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to 12 for TRACING

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ca27e23-b027-0e39-495b-2ba3376342cc@meta.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:07:05 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
        song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
        imagedong@...cent.com, benbjiang@...cent.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to
 12 for TRACING



On 6/7/23 5:59 AM, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> 
> For now, the BPF program of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING can only be used
> on the kernel functions whose arguments count less than 6. This is not
> friendly at all, as too many functions have arguments count more than 6.

Since you already have some statistics, maybe listed in the commit message.

> 
> Therefore, let's enhance it by increasing the function arguments count
> allowed in arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(), for now, only x86_64.
> 
> For the case that we don't need to call origin function, which means
> without BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need only copy the function arguments
> that stored in the frame of the caller to current frame. The arguments
> of arg6-argN are stored in "$rbp + 0x18", we need copy them to
> "$rbp - regs_off + (6 * 8)".

Maybe I missed something, could you explain why it is '$rbp + 0x18'?

In the current upstream code, we have

         /* Generated trampoline stack layout:
          *
          * RBP + 8         [ return address  ]
          * RBP + 0         [ RBP             ]
          *
          * RBP - 8         [ return value    ]  BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG or
          * 
BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET flags
          *
          *                 [ reg_argN        ]  always
          *                 [ ...             ]
          * RBP - regs_off  [ reg_arg1        ]  program's ctx pointer
          *
          * RBP - nregs_off [ regs count      ]  always
          *
          * RBP - ip_off    [ traced function ]  BPF_TRAMP_F_IP_ARG flag
          *
          * RBP - run_ctx_off [ bpf_tramp_run_ctx ]
          */

Next on-stack argument will be RBP + 16, right?

> 
> For the case with BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG, we need prepare the arguments
> in stack before call origin function, which means we need alloc extra
> "8 * (arg_count - 6)" memory in the top of the stack. Note, there should
> not be any data be pushed to the stack before call the origin function.
> Then, we have to store rbx with 'mov' instead of 'push'.
> 
> We use EMIT3_off32() or EMIT4() for "lea" and "sub". The range of the
> imm in "lea" and "sub" is [-128, 127] if EMIT4() is used. Therefore,
> we use EMIT3_off32() instead if the imm out of the range.
> 
> It works well for the FENTRY and FEXIT, I'm not sure if there are other
> complicated cases.

MODIFY_RETURN is also impacted by this patch.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
[...]