[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231204183354.GC7299@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:33:54 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/cfi,bpf: Fix BPF JIT call
On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 07:16:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > that boots properly for me but gives crash below when running bpf tests
>
> OK, more funnies..
>
> > [ 482.145182][ T699] RIP: 0010:bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.145672][ T699] Code: 4c 01 f5 89 5c 24 04 4c 89 e7 48 8d 74 24 04 48 89 ea 4c 89 fd 4c 89 f9 45 31 c0 4d 89 eb 41 ba ef 86 cd 67 45 03 53 f1 74 02 <0f> 0b 41 ff d3 0f 1f 00 48 85 c0 75 0e 48 8d 43 01 41 8b 4c 24 24
> > [ 482.147221][ T699] RSP: 0018:ffffc900017e3e88 EFLAGS: 00010217
> > [ 482.147702][ T699] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffffc900017e3ed8
> > [ 482.152162][ T699] RDX: ffff888152eb0210 RSI: ffffc900017e3e8c RDI: ffff888152eb0000
> > [ 482.152770][ T699] RBP: ffffc900017e3ed8 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > [ 482.153350][ T699] R10: 000000004704ef28 R11: ffffffffa0012774 R12: ffff888152eb0000
> > [ 482.153951][ T699] R13: ffffffffa0012774 R14: ffff888152eb0210 R15: ffffc900017e3ed8
> > [ 482.154554][ T699] FS: 00007fa60d4fdd00(0000) GS:ffff88846d200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [ 482.155138][ T699] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [ 482.155564][ T699] CR2: 00007fa60d7d8000 CR3: 00000001502a2005 CR4: 0000000000770ef0
> > [ 482.156095][ T699] PKRU: 55555554
> > [ 482.156349][ T699] Call Trace:
> > [ 482.156596][ T699] <TASK>
> > [ 482.156816][ T699] ? __die_body+0x68/0xb0
> > [ 482.157138][ T699] ? die+0xba/0xe0
> > [ 482.157456][ T699] ? do_trap+0xa5/0x180
> > [ 482.157826][ T699] ? bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.158277][ T699] ? bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.158711][ T699] ? do_error_trap+0xc4/0x140
> > [ 482.159052][ T699] ? bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.159506][ T699] ? handle_invalid_op+0x2c/0x40
> > [ 482.159906][ T699] ? bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.160990][ T699] ? exc_invalid_op+0x38/0x60
> > [ 482.161375][ T699] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
> > [ 482.161788][ T699] ? 0xffffffffa0012774
> > [ 482.162149][ T699] ? 0xffffffffa0012774
> > [ 482.162513][ T699] ? bpf_for_each_array_elem+0xbb/0x120
> > [ 482.162905][ T699] bpf_prog_ca45ea7f9cb8ac1a_inner_map+0x94/0x98
> > [ 482.163471][ T699] bpf_trampoline_6442549234+0x47/0x1000
>
> Looks like this trips an #UD, I'll go try and figure out what this
> bpf_for_each_array_elem() does to cause this. Looks like it has an
> indirect call, could be the callback_fn thing has a CFI mis-match.
So afaict this is used through bpf_for_each_map_elem(), where the
argument still is properly callback_fn. However, in the desriptor
bpf_for_each_map_elem_proto the argument gets described as:
ARG_PTR_TO_FUNC, which in turn has a comment like:
ARG_PTR_TO_FUNC, /* pointer to a bpf program function */
Which to me sounds like there is definite type punning involved. The
call in bpf_for_each_array_elem() is a regular C indirect call, which
gets adorned with the kCFI magic.
But I doubt the BPF function that gets used gets the correct matching
bits on.
TL;DR, I think this is a pre-existing problem with kCFI + eBPF and not
caused by my patches.
Could any of you bpf knowledgeable folks please explain me exactly what
gets used as the function pointer in this case? -- I'm not sure I can
follow along well enough to begin looking for a solution at this point
:/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists