| Message ID | 20200917084925.177348-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT | expand |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:49:25AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this: > > [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 > [ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP > [ 6525.741609] Modules linked in: nls_utf8 cifs libdes libarc4 dns_resolver fscache binfmt_misc nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat aes_ce_blk crypto_simd cryptd aes_ce_cipher ghash_ce gf128mul efi_pstore sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce evdev efivars efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 btrfs blake2b_generic xor xor_neon zstd_compress raid6_pq libcrc32c crc32c_generic ahci xhci_pci libahci xhci_hcd igb libata i2c_algo_bit nvme realtek usbcore nvme_core scsi_mod t10_pi netsec mdio_devres of_mdio gpio_keys fixed_phy libphy gpio_mb86s7x > [ 6525.787760] CPU: 3 PID: 7881 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc1+ #47 > [ 6525.796111] Hardware name: Socionext SynQuacer E-series DeveloperBox, BIOS build #1 Jun 6 2020 > [ 6525.804812] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) > [ 6525.810390] pc : bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > [ 6525.815613] lr : bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > [ 6525.820832] sp : ffff8000130cbb80 > [ 6525.824141] x29: ffff8000130cbbb0 x28: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.829451] x27: 000005ef6fcbf39b x26: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.834759] x25: ffff8000130cbb80 x24: ffff800011dc7038 > [ 6525.840067] x23: ffff8000130cbd00 x22: ffff0008f624d080 > [ 6525.845375] x21: 0000000000000001 x20: ffff800011dc7000 > [ 6525.850682] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.855990] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.861298] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.866606] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.871913] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffff8000000a660c > [ 6525.877220] x9 : ffff800010951810 x8 : ffff8000130cbc38 > [ 6525.882528] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000009864cfa881 > [ 6525.887836] x5 : 00ffffffffffffff x4 : 002880ba1a0b3e9f > [ 6525.893144] x3 : 0000000000000018 x2 : ffff8000000a4374 > [ 6525.898452] x1 : 000000000000000a x0 : 0000000000000009 > [ 6525.903760] Call trace: > [ 6525.906202] bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > [ 6525.911076] bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > [ 6525.915957] bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func+0x14/0x20 > [ 6525.920398] bpf_test_run+0x70/0x1b0 > [ 6525.923969] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xec/0x190 > [ 6525.928326] __do_sys_bpf+0xc88/0x1b28 > [ 6525.932072] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x24/0x30 > [ 6525.935820] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x70/0x168 > [ 6525.940607] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x88 > [ 6525.943920] el0_sync_handler+0x88/0x190 > [ 6525.947838] el0_sync+0x140/0x180 > [ 6525.951154] Code: d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 (d4202000) > [ 6525.957249] ---[ end trace cecc3f93b14927e2 ]--- > > The reason is the offset[] creation and later usage, while building > the eBPF body. The code currently omits the first instruction, since > build_insn() will increase our ctx->idx before saving it. > That was fine up until bounded eBPF loops were introduced. After that > introduction, offset[0] must be the offset of the end of prologue which > is the start of the 1st insn while, offset[n] holds the > offset of the end of n-th insn. > > When "taken loop with back jump to 1st insn" test runs, it will > eventually call bpf2a64_offset(-1, 2, ctx). Since negative indexing is > permitted, the current outcome depends on the value stored in > ctx->offset[-1], which has nothing to do with our array. > If the value happens to be 0 the tests will work. If not this error > triggers. > > commit 7c2e988f400e ("bpf: fix x64 JIT code generation for jmp to 1st insn") > fixed an indentical bug on x86 when eBPF bounded loops were introduced. > > So let's fix it by creating the ctx->offset[] differently. Track the > beginning of instruction and account for the extra instruction while > calculating the arm instruction offsets. > > Fixes: 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops") > Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> > Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > Co-developed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> > Co-developed-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Catalin -- do you want to take this as a fix? Will
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:49:25 +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this: > > [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 > [ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP > [ 6525.741609] Modules linked in: nls_utf8 cifs libdes libarc4 dns_resolver fscache binfmt_misc nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat aes_ce_blk crypto_simd cryptd aes_ce_cipher ghash_ce gf128mul efi_pstore sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce evdev efivars efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 btrfs blake2b_generic xor xor_neon zstd_compress raid6_pq libcrc32c crc32c_generic ahci xhci_pci libahci xhci_hcd igb libata i2c_algo_bit nvme realtek usbcore nvme_core scsi_mod t10_pi netsec mdio_devres of_mdio gpio_keys fixed_phy libphy gpio_mb86s7x > [ 6525.787760] CPU: 3 PID: 7881 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc1+ #47 > [ 6525.796111] Hardware name: Socionext SynQuacer E-series DeveloperBox, BIOS build #1 Jun 6 2020 > [ 6525.804812] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) > [ 6525.810390] pc : bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > [ 6525.815613] lr : bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > [ 6525.820832] sp : ffff8000130cbb80 > [ 6525.824141] x29: ffff8000130cbbb0 x28: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.829451] x27: 000005ef6fcbf39b x26: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.834759] x25: ffff8000130cbb80 x24: ffff800011dc7038 > [ 6525.840067] x23: ffff8000130cbd00 x22: ffff0008f624d080 > [ 6525.845375] x21: 0000000000000001 x20: ffff800011dc7000 > [ 6525.850682] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.855990] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.861298] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.866606] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 > [ 6525.871913] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffff8000000a660c > [ 6525.877220] x9 : ffff800010951810 x8 : ffff8000130cbc38 > [ 6525.882528] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000009864cfa881 > [ 6525.887836] x5 : 00ffffffffffffff x4 : 002880ba1a0b3e9f > [ 6525.893144] x3 : 0000000000000018 x2 : ffff8000000a4374 > [ 6525.898452] x1 : 000000000000000a x0 : 0000000000000009 > [ 6525.903760] Call trace: > [ 6525.906202] bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 > [ 6525.911076] bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c > [ 6525.915957] bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func+0x14/0x20 > [ 6525.920398] bpf_test_run+0x70/0x1b0 > [ 6525.923969] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xec/0x190 > [ 6525.928326] __do_sys_bpf+0xc88/0x1b28 > [ 6525.932072] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x24/0x30 > [ 6525.935820] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x70/0x168 > [ 6525.940607] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x88 > [ 6525.943920] el0_sync_handler+0x88/0x190 > [ 6525.947838] el0_sync+0x140/0x180 > [ 6525.951154] Code: d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 (d4202000) > [ 6525.957249] ---[ end trace cecc3f93b14927e2 ]--- > > [...] Applied to arm64 (for-next/fixes), thanks! [1/1] arm64: bpf: Fix branch offset in JIT https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/32f6865c7aa3 -- Catalin
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index f8912e45be7a..ef9f1d5e989d 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -143,14 +143,17 @@ static inline void emit_addr_mov_i64(const int reg, const u64 val, } } -static inline int bpf2a64_offset(int bpf_to, int bpf_from, +static inline int bpf2a64_offset(int bpf_insn, int off, const struct jit_ctx *ctx) { - int to = ctx->offset[bpf_to]; - /* -1 to account for the Branch instruction */ - int from = ctx->offset[bpf_from] - 1; - - return to - from; + /* BPF JMP offset is relative to the next instruction */ + bpf_insn++; + /* + * Whereas arm64 branch instructions encode the offset + * from the branch itself, so we must subtract 1 from the + * instruction offset. + */ + return ctx->offset[bpf_insn + off] - (ctx->offset[bpf_insn] - 1); } static void jit_fill_hole(void *area, unsigned int size) @@ -642,7 +645,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, /* JUMP off */ case BPF_JMP | BPF_JA: - jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i + off, i, ctx); + jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i, off, ctx); check_imm26(jmp_offset); emit(A64_B(jmp_offset), ctx); break; @@ -669,7 +672,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSLE | BPF_X: emit(A64_CMP(is64, dst, src), ctx); emit_cond_jmp: - jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i + off, i, ctx); + jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i, off, ctx); check_imm19(jmp_offset); switch (BPF_OP(code)) { case BPF_JEQ: @@ -908,10 +911,21 @@ static int build_body(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool extra_pass) const struct bpf_prog *prog = ctx->prog; int i; + /* + * - offset[0] offset of the end of prologue, + * start of the 1st instruction. + * - offset[1] - offset of the end of 1st instruction, + * start of the 2nd instruction + * [....] + * - offset[3] - offset of the end of 3rd instruction, + * start of 4th instruction + */ for (i = 0; i < prog->len; i++) { const struct bpf_insn *insn = &prog->insnsi[i]; int ret; + if (ctx->image == NULL) + ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx; ret = build_insn(insn, ctx, extra_pass); if (ret > 0) { i++; @@ -919,11 +933,16 @@ static int build_body(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool extra_pass) ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx; continue; } - if (ctx->image == NULL) - ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx; if (ret) return ret; } + /* + * offset is allocated with prog->len + 1 so fill in + * the last element with the offset after the last + * instruction (end of program) + */ + if (ctx->image == NULL) + ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx; return 0; } @@ -1002,7 +1021,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog) memset(&ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx)); ctx.prog = prog; - ctx.offset = kcalloc(prog->len, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL); + ctx.offset = kcalloc(prog->len + 1, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL); if (ctx.offset == NULL) { prog = orig_prog; goto out_off; @@ -1089,7 +1108,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog) prog->jited_len = prog_size; if (!prog->is_func || extra_pass) { - bpf_prog_fill_jited_linfo(prog, ctx.offset); + bpf_prog_fill_jited_linfo(prog, ctx.offset + 1); out_off: kfree(ctx.offset); kfree(jit_data);
Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this: [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1 [ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP [ 6525.741609] Modules linked in: nls_utf8 cifs libdes libarc4 dns_resolver fscache binfmt_misc nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat aes_ce_blk crypto_simd cryptd aes_ce_cipher ghash_ce gf128mul efi_pstore sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce evdev efivars efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 btrfs blake2b_generic xor xor_neon zstd_compress raid6_pq libcrc32c crc32c_generic ahci xhci_pci libahci xhci_hcd igb libata i2c_algo_bit nvme realtek usbcore nvme_core scsi_mod t10_pi netsec mdio_devres of_mdio gpio_keys fixed_phy libphy gpio_mb86s7x [ 6525.787760] CPU: 3 PID: 7881 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc1+ #47 [ 6525.796111] Hardware name: Socionext SynQuacer E-series DeveloperBox, BIOS build #1 Jun 6 2020 [ 6525.804812] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) [ 6525.810390] pc : bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 [ 6525.815613] lr : bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c [ 6525.820832] sp : ffff8000130cbb80 [ 6525.824141] x29: ffff8000130cbbb0 x28: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.829451] x27: 000005ef6fcbf39b x26: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.834759] x25: ffff8000130cbb80 x24: ffff800011dc7038 [ 6525.840067] x23: ffff8000130cbd00 x22: ffff0008f624d080 [ 6525.845375] x21: 0000000000000001 x20: ffff800011dc7000 [ 6525.850682] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.855990] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.861298] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.866606] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 6525.871913] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffff8000000a660c [ 6525.877220] x9 : ffff800010951810 x8 : ffff8000130cbc38 [ 6525.882528] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000009864cfa881 [ 6525.887836] x5 : 00ffffffffffffff x4 : 002880ba1a0b3e9f [ 6525.893144] x3 : 0000000000000018 x2 : ffff8000000a4374 [ 6525.898452] x1 : 000000000000000a x0 : 0000000000000009 [ 6525.903760] Call trace: [ 6525.906202] bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4 [ 6525.911076] bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c [ 6525.915957] bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func+0x14/0x20 [ 6525.920398] bpf_test_run+0x70/0x1b0 [ 6525.923969] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xec/0x190 [ 6525.928326] __do_sys_bpf+0xc88/0x1b28 [ 6525.932072] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x24/0x30 [ 6525.935820] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x70/0x168 [ 6525.940607] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x88 [ 6525.943920] el0_sync_handler+0x88/0x190 [ 6525.947838] el0_sync+0x140/0x180 [ 6525.951154] Code: d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 (d4202000) [ 6525.957249] ---[ end trace cecc3f93b14927e2 ]--- The reason is the offset[] creation and later usage, while building the eBPF body. The code currently omits the first instruction, since build_insn() will increase our ctx->idx before saving it. That was fine up until bounded eBPF loops were introduced. After that introduction, offset[0] must be the offset of the end of prologue which is the start of the 1st insn while, offset[n] holds the offset of the end of n-th insn. When "taken loop with back jump to 1st insn" test runs, it will eventually call bpf2a64_offset(-1, 2, ctx). Since negative indexing is permitted, the current outcome depends on the value stored in ctx->offset[-1], which has nothing to do with our array. If the value happens to be 0 the tests will work. If not this error triggers. commit 7c2e988f400e ("bpf: fix x64 JIT code generation for jmp to 1st insn") fixed an indentical bug on x86 when eBPF bounded loops were introduced. So let's fix it by creating the ctx->offset[] differently. Track the beginning of instruction and account for the extra instruction while calculating the arm instruction offsets. Fixes: 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Co-developed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> Co-developed-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> --- Changes since v1: - Added Co-developed-by, Reported-by and Fixes tags correctly - Describe the expected context of ctx->offset[] in comments Changes since v2: - Drop the change of behavior for 16-byte eBPF instructions. This won't currently cause any problems and can go in on a different patch - simplify bpf2a64_offset() arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)