From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8F4C4332F for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229914AbiKUOdG (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:33:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45326 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230457AbiKUOc4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:32:56 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E817A12093; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 06:32:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id cl5so20144931wrb.9; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 06:32:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=oMxdVkeJC7Qwe+UUVslk9eQ8uzs6tVkGa4HBt7gnyb4=; b=ZOjpOzhQo2ic2GJnJkbCH5xkCL0Sdr8XTsqnc9P1S69AWNxuW8W32NyDAWWIeRCJ7r /40w2NhsNbLANSx2XQepOwvXjNZkqof8uynIDVGTElF+zTlFpvMs9Hk1aCiZkw+//hnc e/5tazEjfXiQ17cLxZ12U4YIZhleuHgBGpv+sAQgHLa+0kYgpc2Wzp1xuE4t1npC7iMx anm/z7kT08j8Bo941QLRZ4D7MuaBPu4P26wEXsH9Pe7NOG+UWnKL+BuJnHRcwFvP2UEj mH7bp5SsfQcTZUOEdur0iy25nwlBsbqbev+ykA5TnQeBaOC24DRo86K355Vs1+MKec0t Odgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=oMxdVkeJC7Qwe+UUVslk9eQ8uzs6tVkGa4HBt7gnyb4=; b=w0Is6LSjGMW8c+z6IbwV+QA3VI7vtBPkUaMWwI7GTa6p6fcfgY+pBartOXYrtA55ar m1vkufv5Qya8/yKj8M98f/scZW0OCfc6t4kYlA170ZnebU2xOSlZBV/pVf6JJM3MUJ1c L5HsAjNc+XBBAHR8P+6NkgULZ+Kf2ZBAGtU4Hl1LAH55EPeKsqDiR9lRHj3gO2PvYC/V IWB2eLdaMonmUKqX/myCRnFaKHxMciFtpH8xX+gVP6hUyt7c0t+8F8qNv869njgDGU36 4miQBAktfbdVzRQzrORjF0uSd5Y6mEFxhz91LTN8rItd9CqtSJLg/dmut3pKhsVy941o T/NQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnDldJtSih/o0WtAIOBXWweJJsmjvwOAreAHFpQQXNJNxb0RQDd F7lm3YLqi7enZt/L1UAxUWU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf76+QGXGrfSvNDhsW0eKQIaujeQqyDpknKfxZrImyFR+63eC+B87mOQlqZFTqTF/e12bEN8ow== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a08:0:b0:241:da26:bddf with SMTP id m8-20020a5d6a08000000b00241da26bddfmr2160381wru.591.1669041172361; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 06:32:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from krava (2001-1ae9-1c2-4c00-726e-c10f-8833-ff22.ip6.tmcz.cz. [2001:1ae9:1c2:4c00:726e:c10f:8833:ff22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11-20020a05600c0a0b00b003c6f1732f65sm20663146wmp.38.2022.11.21.06.32.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 06:32:51 -0800 (PST) From: Jiri Olsa X-Google-Original-From: Jiri Olsa Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:32:49 +0100 To: Chen Hu Cc: jpoimboe@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Pengfei Xu , Martin KaFai Lau , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: Fix "missing ENDBR" BUG for destructor kfunc Message-ID: References: <20221121085113.611504-1-hu1.chen@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221121085113.611504-1-hu1.chen@intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:51:13AM -0800, Chen Hu wrote: > With CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT enabled, the test_verifier triggers the > following BUG: > > traps: Missing ENDBR: bpf_kfunc_call_test_release+0x0/0x30 > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > kernel BUG at arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:254! > invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP > > asm_exc_control_protection+0x26/0x50 > RIP: 0010:bpf_kfunc_call_test_release+0x0/0x30 > Code: 00 48 c7 c7 18 f2 e1 b4 e8 0d ca 8c ff 48 c7 c0 00 f2 e1 b4 c3 > 0f 1f 44 00 00 66 0f 1f 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 0f 0b 31 c0 c3 66 90 > <66> 0f 1f 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 74 13 4c 8d 47 18 b8 ff ff ff > bpf_map_free_kptrs+0x2e/0x70 > array_map_free+0x57/0x140 > process_one_work+0x194/0x3a0 > worker_thread+0x54/0x3a0 > ? rescuer_thread+0x390/0x390 > kthread+0xe9/0x110 > ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 > > This is because there are no compile-time references to the destructor > kfuncs, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release() for example. So objtool marked > them sealable and ENDBR in the functions were sealed (converted to NOP) > by apply_ibt_endbr(). nice :) thanks for the fix, some suggestions below > > This fix creates dummy compile-time references to destructor kfuncs so > ENDBR stay there. > > Signed-off-by: Chen Hu > Tested-by: Pengfei Xu > --- > include/linux/btf_ids.h | 7 +++++++ > net/bpf/test_run.c | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/btf_ids.h b/include/linux/btf_ids.h > index 2aea877d644f..6c6b520ea58f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/btf_ids.h > +++ b/include/linux/btf_ids.h > @@ -266,4 +266,11 @@ MAX_BTF_TRACING_TYPE, > > extern u32 btf_tracing_ids[]; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT) && !defined(__DISABLE_EXPORTS) > +#define BTF_IBT_NOSEAL(name) \ > + asm(IBT_NOSEAL(#name)); > +#else > +#define BTF_IBT_NOSEAL(name) > +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT */ this is not BTF or BTF ID specific, instead should we add some generic macro like: FUNC_IBT_NOSEAL(...) > + > #endif > diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c > index 13d578ce2a09..465952e5de11 100644 > --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c > +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c > @@ -1653,6 +1653,8 @@ BTF_ID(struct, prog_test_ref_kfunc) > BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_test_release) > BTF_ID(struct, prog_test_member) > BTF_ID(func, bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release) > +BTF_IBT_NOSEAL(bpf_kfunc_call_test_release) > +BTF_IBT_NOSEAL(bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release) same here, it looks like it's part of the list above, I think this would be better after function body like: noinline void bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release(struct prog_test_member *p) { } FUNC_IBT_NOSEAL(bpf_kfunc_call_memb_release) thanks, jirka