All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/bpf: Fix detecting BPF atomic instructions
Date: Thu,  1 Jul 2021 20:38:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4117b430ffaa8cd7af042496f87fd7539e4f17fd.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Commit 91c960b0056672 ("bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other
atomics in .imm") converted BPF_XADD to BPF_ATOMIC and added a way to
distinguish instructions based on the immediate field. Existing JIT
implementations were updated to check for the immediate field and to
reject programs utilizing anything more than BPF_ADD (such as BPF_FETCH)
in the immediate field.

However, the check added to powerpc64 JIT did not look at the correct
BPF instruction. Due to this, such programs would be accepted and
incorrectly JIT'ed resulting in soft lockups, as seen with the atomic
bounds test. Fix this by looking at the correct immediate value.

Fixes: 91c960b0056672 ("bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm")
Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Hi Jiri,
FYI: I made a small change in this patch -- using 'imm' directly, rather 
than insn[i].imm. I've still added your Tested-by since this shouldn't 
impact the fix in any way.

- Naveen


 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 5cad5b5a7e9774..de8595880feec6 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
 		 * BPF_STX ATOMIC (atomic ops)
 		 */
 		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
-			if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+			if (imm != BPF_ADD) {
 				pr_err_ratelimited(
 					"eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
 					code, i);
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
 			PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
 			break;
 		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW:
-			if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+			if (imm != BPF_ADD) {
 				pr_err_ratelimited(
 					"eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
 					code, i);
-- 
2.31.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Cc: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/bpf: Fix detecting BPF atomic instructions
Date: Thu,  1 Jul 2021 20:38:58 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4117b430ffaa8cd7af042496f87fd7539e4f17fd.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Commit 91c960b0056672 ("bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other
atomics in .imm") converted BPF_XADD to BPF_ATOMIC and added a way to
distinguish instructions based on the immediate field. Existing JIT
implementations were updated to check for the immediate field and to
reject programs utilizing anything more than BPF_ADD (such as BPF_FETCH)
in the immediate field.

However, the check added to powerpc64 JIT did not look at the correct
BPF instruction. Due to this, such programs would be accepted and
incorrectly JIT'ed resulting in soft lockups, as seen with the atomic
bounds test. Fix this by looking at the correct immediate value.

Fixes: 91c960b0056672 ("bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm")
Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Hi Jiri,
FYI: I made a small change in this patch -- using 'imm' directly, rather 
than insn[i].imm. I've still added your Tested-by since this shouldn't 
impact the fix in any way.

- Naveen


 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 5cad5b5a7e9774..de8595880feec6 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
 		 * BPF_STX ATOMIC (atomic ops)
 		 */
 		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W:
-			if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+			if (imm != BPF_ADD) {
 				pr_err_ratelimited(
 					"eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
 					code, i);
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ int bpf_jit_build_body(struct bpf_prog *fp, u32 *image, struct codegen_context *
 			PPC_BCC_SHORT(COND_NE, tmp_idx);
 			break;
 		case BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW:
-			if (insn->imm != BPF_ADD) {
+			if (imm != BPF_ADD) {
 				pr_err_ratelimited(
 					"eBPF filter atomic op code %02x (@%d) unsupported\n",
 					code, i);
-- 
2.31.1


  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-01 15:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-01 15:08 [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/bpf: Fix issue with atomic ops Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 15:08 ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 15:08 ` Naveen N. Rao [this message]
2021-07-01 15:08   ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/bpf: Fix detecting BPF atomic instructions Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 16:03   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-07-01 16:03     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-07-01 19:32     ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 19:32       ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 19:33       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-07-01 19:33         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-07-02 10:26   ` Jiri Olsa
2021-07-02 10:26     ` Jiri Olsa
2021-07-01 15:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/bpf: Reject atomic ops in ppc32 JIT Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 15:08   ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 16:36   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-07-01 19:36     ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-01 19:36       ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-07-06 10:52 ` [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/bpf: Fix issue with atomic ops Michael Ellerman
2021-07-06 10:52   ` Michael Ellerman

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=4117b430ffaa8cd7af042496f87fd7539e4f17fd.1625145429.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jackmanb@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.