| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZphyxnjmz+9FdsKst3WuaN7w5bSvX6szXic4gy-wfR_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 20:03:55 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
antony.antony@...unet.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
song@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, trix@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, devel@...ux-ipsec.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@...atrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/10] libbpf: Add BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD() macro
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:57 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>
> === Motivation ===
>
> Similar to reading from CO-RE bitfields, we need a CO-RE aware bitfield
> writing wrapper to make the verifier happy.
>
> Two alternatives to this approach are:
>
> 1. Use the upcoming `preserve_static_offset` [0] attribute to disable
> CO-RE on specific structs.
> 2. Use broader byte-sized writes to write to bitfields.
>
> (1) is a bit hard to use. It requires specific and not-very-obvious
> annotations to bpftool generated vmlinux.h. It's also not generally
> available in released LLVM versions yet.
>
> (2) makes the code quite hard to read and write. And especially if
> BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() is already being used, it makes more sense to
> to have an inverse helper for writing.
>
> === Implementation details ===
>
> Since the logic is a bit non-obvious, I thought it would be helpful
> to explain exactly what's going on.
>
> To start, it helps by explaining what LSHIFT_U64 (lshift) and RSHIFT_U64
> (rshift) is designed to mean. Consider the core of the
> BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() algorithm:
>
> val <<= __CORE_RELO(s, field, LSHIFT_U64);
> val = val >> __CORE_RELO(s, field, RSHIFT_U64);
>
> Basically what happens is we lshift to clear the non-relevant (blank)
> higher order bits. Then we rshift to bring the relevant bits (bitfield)
> down to LSB position (while also clearing blank lower order bits). To
> illustrate:
>
> Start: ........XXX......
> Lshift: XXX......00000000
> Rshift: 00000000000000XXX
>
> where `.` means blank bit, `0` means 0 bit, and `X` means bitfield bit.
>
> After the two operations, the bitfield is ready to be interpreted as a
> regular integer.
>
> Next, we want to build an alternative (but more helpful) mental model
> on lshift and rshift. That is, to consider:
>
> * rshift as the total number of blank bits in the u64
> * lshift as number of blank bits left of the bitfield in the u64
>
> Take a moment to consider why that is true by consulting the above
> diagram.
>
> With this insight, we can now define the following relationship:
>
> bitfield
> _
> | |
> 0.....00XXX0...00
> | | | |
> |______| | |
> lshift | |
> |____|
> (rshift - lshift)
>
> That is, we know the number of higher order blank bits is just lshift.
> And the number of lower order blank bits is (rshift - lshift).
>
> Finally, we can examine the core of the write side algorithm:
>
> mask = (~0ULL << rshift) >> lshift; // 1
> val = (val & ~mask) | ((nval << rpad) & mask); // 2
>
> 1. Compute a mask where the set bits are the bitfield bits. The first
> left shift zeros out exactly the number of blank bits, leaving a
> bitfield sized set of 1s. The subsequent right shift inserts the
> correct amount of higher order blank bits.
>
> 2. On the left of the `|`, mask out the bitfield bits. This creates
> 0s where the new bitfield bits will go. On the right of the `|`,
> bring nval into the correct bit position and mask out any bits
> that fall outside of the bitfield. Finally, by bor'ing the two
> halves, we get the final set of bits to write back.
>
> [0]: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133361
> Co-developed-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
> Co-developed-by: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@...atrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@...atrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>
LGTM
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
> index 1ac57bb7ac55..7325a12692a3 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_core_read.h
> @@ -111,6 +111,38 @@ enum bpf_enum_value_kind {
> val; \
> })
>
> +/*
> + * Write to a bitfield, identified by s->field.
> + * This is the inverse of BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD().
> + */
> +#define BPF_CORE_WRITE_BITFIELD(s, field, new_val) ({ \
> + void *p = (void *)s + __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_OFFSET); \
> + unsigned int byte_size = __CORE_RELO(s, field, BYTE_SIZE); \
> + unsigned int lshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, LSHIFT_U64); \
> + unsigned int rshift = __CORE_RELO(s, field, RSHIFT_U64); \
> + unsigned long long mask, val, nval = new_val; \
> + unsigned int rpad = rshift - lshift; \
> + \
> + asm volatile("" : "+r"(p)); \
> + \
> + switch (byte_size) { \
> + case 1: val = *(unsigned char *)p; break; \
> + case 2: val = *(unsigned short *)p; break; \
> + case 4: val = *(unsigned int *)p; break; \
> + case 8: val = *(unsigned long long *)p; break; \
> + } \
> + \
> + mask = (~0ULL << rshift) >> lshift; \
> + val = (val & ~mask) | ((nval << rpad) & mask); \
> + \
> + switch (byte_size) { \
> + case 1: *(unsigned char *)p = val; break; \
> + case 2: *(unsigned short *)p = val; break; \
> + case 4: *(unsigned int *)p = val; break; \
> + case 8: *(unsigned long long *)p = val; break; \
> + } \
> +})
> +
> #define ___bpf_field_ref1(field) (field)
> #define ___bpf_field_ref2(type, field) (((typeof(type) *)0)->field)
> #define ___bpf_field_ref(args...) \
> --
> 2.42.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists