From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
To: Maxwell Bland <mbland@motorola.com>,
"open list:BPF [GENERAL] (Safe Dynamic Programs and Tools)"
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] arm64/cfi,bpf: Support kCFI + BPF on arm64
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:39:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mb61pttj1k6nz.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ub6a7msv36rhotqez3usccexkn7kdqqnsyklrnqy7znqas7fhe@cry4jnw3baky>
Maxwell Bland <mbland@motorola.com> writes:
This patch has a subtle difference from the patch that I sent in v2[1]
Unfortunately, you didn't test this. :(
It will break BPF on an ARM64 kernel compiled with CONFIG_CFI_CLANG=y
See below:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 76b91f36c729..703247457409 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include <asm/asm-extable.h>
> #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> +#include <asm/cfi.h>
> #include <asm/debug-monitors.h>
> #include <asm/insn.h>
> #include <asm/patching.h>
> @@ -162,6 +163,12 @@ static inline void emit_bti(u32 insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> emit(insn, ctx);
> }
>
> +static inline void emit_kcfi(u32 hash, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI_CLANG))
> + emit(hash, ctx);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Kernel addresses in the vmalloc space use at most 48 bits, and the
> * remaining bits are guaranteed to be 0x1. So we can compose the address
> @@ -337,6 +344,7 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
> *
> */
In my original patch the hunk here looked something like:
--- >8 ---
- const int idx0 = ctx->idx;
int cur_offset;
/*
@@ -332,6 +338,8 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool ebpf_from_cbpf,
*
*/
+ emit_kcfi(is_subprog ? cfi_bpf_subprog_hash : cfi_bpf_hash, ctx);
+ const int idx0 = ctx->idx;
--- 8< ---
moving idx0 = ctx->idx; after emit_kcfi() is important because later
this 'idx0' is used like:
cur_offset = ctx->idx - idx0;
if (cur_offset != PROLOGUE_OFFSET) {
pr_err_once("PROLOGUE_OFFSET = %d, expected %d!\n",
cur_offset, PROLOGUE_OFFSET);
return -1;
}
With the current version, when I boot the kernel I get:
[ 0.499207] bpf_jit: PROLOGUE_OFFSET = 13, expected 12!
and now no BPF program can be JITed!
Please fix this in the next version and test it by running:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs
Pay attention to the `rbtree_success` and the `dummy_st_ops` tests, they
are the important ones for this change.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240324211518.93892-2-puranjay12@gmail.com/
Thanks,
Puranjay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-13 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-13 14:08 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/3] Support kCFI + BPF on arm64 Maxwell Bland
2024-05-13 14:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/3] cfi: add C CFI type macro Maxwell Bland
2024-05-13 14:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] arm64/cfi,bpf: Support kCFI + BPF on arm64 Maxwell Bland
2024-05-13 16:39 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2024-05-13 14:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] arm64/cfi,bpf: Use DEFINE_CFI_TYPE in arm64 Maxwell Bland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=mb61pttj1k6nz.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=puranjay12@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mbland@motorola.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=zlim.lnx@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).