All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
"
172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
Unexpected error message!
0: (bf) r6 = r10
1: (07) r6 += -8
2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
3: (bf) r2 = r10
4: (07) r2 += -76
5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
0: (b7) r0 = 0
1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
0: (b7) r0 = 0
1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
0: (b7) r0 = 0
1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
0: (b7) r0 = 0
1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
"
This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
can't divide exactly into 8.
Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
---
Hi all!
After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
Thanks.
include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
struct bpf_perf_event_data {
bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
- __u64 sample_period;
+ __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
__u64 addr;
};
--
1.8.5.6.2.g3d8a54e.dirty
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
> All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
> test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
> "
> 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
> Unexpected error message!
> 0: (bf) r6 = r10
> 1: (07) r6 += -8
> 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
> 4: (07) r2 += -76
> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
> 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
> 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
> 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
>
> 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
>
> 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
>
> 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
>
> 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
> "
>
> This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
> same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
> can't divide exactly into 8.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
> ---
> Hi all!
> After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
> to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
>
> Thanks.
>
> include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>
> struct bpf_perf_event_data {
> bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
> - __u64 sample_period;
> + __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
I don't think this necessary.
imo it's a bug in pe_prog_is_valid_access
that should have allowed 8-byte access to 4-byte aligned sample_period.
The access rewritten by pe_prog_convert_ctx_access anyway,
no alignment issues as far as I can see.
On 04/28/2018 12:48 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
>> All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
>> test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
>> "
>> 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
>> Unexpected error message!
>> 0: (bf) r6 = r10
>> 1: (07) r6 += -8
>> 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
>> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
>> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
>> 4: (07) r2 += -76
>> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
>> 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
>> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
>> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
>> 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
>> 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
>>
>> 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>> 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
>>
>> 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>> 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
>>
>> 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>> 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
>>
>> 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>> 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
>> "
>>
>> This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
>> same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
>> can't divide exactly into 8.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Hi all!
>> After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
>> to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>> index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>
>> struct bpf_perf_event_data {
>> bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
>> - __u64 sample_period;
>> + __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>
> I don't think this necessary.
> imo it's a bug in pe_prog_is_valid_access
> that should have allowed 8-byte access to 4-byte aligned sample_period.
> The access rewritten by pe_prog_convert_ctx_access anyway,
> no alignment issues as far as I can see.
Right, good point. Wang, could you give the below a test run:
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 56ba0f2..95b9142 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -833,8 +833,14 @@ static bool pe_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type
return false;
if (type != BPF_READ)
return false;
- if (off % size != 0)
- return false;
+ if (off % size != 0) {
+ if (sizeof(long) != 4)
+ return false;
+ if (size != 8)
+ return false;
+ if (off % size != 4)
+ return false;
+ }
switch (off) {
case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period):
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/28/2018 12:48 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
> >> All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
> >> test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
> >> "
> >> 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
> >> Unexpected error message!
> >> 0: (bf) r6 = r10
> >> 1: (07) r6 += -8
> >> 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
> >> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
> >> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
> >> 4: (07) r2 += -76
> >> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
> >> 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
> >> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
> >> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
> >> 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
> >> 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
> >>
> >> 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
> >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> >> 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
> >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
> >>
> >> 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
> >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> >> 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
> >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
> >>
> >> 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
> >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> >> 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
> >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
> >>
> >> 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
> >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> >> 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
> >> "
> >>
> >> This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
> >> same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
> >> can't divide exactly into 8.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> Hi all!
> >> After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
> >> to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> >> index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> >> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
> >>
> >> struct bpf_perf_event_data {
> >> bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
> >> - __u64 sample_period;
> >> + __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> >
> > I don't think this necessary.
> > imo it's a bug in pe_prog_is_valid_access
> > that should have allowed 8-byte access to 4-byte aligned sample_period.
> > The access rewritten by pe_prog_convert_ctx_access anyway,
> > no alignment issues as far as I can see.
>
> Right, good point. Wang, could you give the below a test run:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index 56ba0f2..95b9142 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -833,8 +833,14 @@ static bool pe_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type
> return false;
> if (type != BPF_READ)
> return false;
> - if (off % size != 0)
> - return false;
> + if (off % size != 0) {
> + if (sizeof(long) != 4)
> + return false;
> + if (size != 8)
> + return false;
> + if (off % size != 4)
> + return false;
> + }
>
> switch (off) {
> case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period):
Hi all!
I have tested this patch, but test_verifier reports the same errors
for the five testcases.
The reason is they all failed to pass the test of bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok.
Thanks.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:29:17PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 04/28/2018 12:48 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
> > >> All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
> > >> test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
> > >> "
> > >> 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
> > >> Unexpected error message!
> > >> 0: (bf) r6 = r10
> > >> 1: (07) r6 += -8
> > >> 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
> > >> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
> > >> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
> > >> 4: (07) r2 += -76
> > >> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
> > >> 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
> > >> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
> > >> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
> > >> 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
> > >> 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> > >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
> > >>
> > >> 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
> > >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> > >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> > >> 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
> > >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
> > >>
> > >> 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
> > >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> > >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> > >> 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
> > >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
> > >>
> > >> 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
> > >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> > >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> > >> 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
> > >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
> > >>
> > >> 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
> > >> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> > >> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
> > >> 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
> > >> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
> > >> same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
> > >> can't divide exactly into 8.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
> > >> ---
> > >> Hi all!
> > >> After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
> > >> to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
> > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> > >> index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
> > >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> > >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
> > >> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
> > >>
> > >> struct bpf_perf_event_data {
> > >> bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
> > >> - __u64 sample_period;
> > >> + __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > >
> > > I don't think this necessary.
> > > imo it's a bug in pe_prog_is_valid_access
> > > that should have allowed 8-byte access to 4-byte aligned sample_period.
> > > The access rewritten by pe_prog_convert_ctx_access anyway,
> > > no alignment issues as far as I can see.
> >
> > Right, good point. Wang, could you give the below a test run:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 56ba0f2..95b9142 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -833,8 +833,14 @@ static bool pe_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type
> > return false;
> > if (type != BPF_READ)
> > return false;
> > - if (off % size != 0)
> > - return false;
> > + if (off % size != 0) {
> > + if (sizeof(long) != 4)
> > + return false;
> > + if (size != 8)
> > + return false;
> > + if (off % size != 4)
> > + return false;
> > + }
> >
> > switch (off) {
> > case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period):
> Hi all!
>
> I have tested this patch, but test_verifier reports the same errors
> for the five testcases.
>
> The reason is they all failed to pass the test of bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok.
>
> Thanks.
Hi! Daniel Borkmann.
Do you have any plan to fix bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok for these problems?
Thanks.
On 05/07/2018 09:23 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:29:17PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 04/28/2018 12:48 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote:
>>>>> All the testcases for BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT program type in
>>>>> test_verifier(kselftest) report below errors on x86_32:
>>>>> "
>>>>> 172/p unpriv: spill/fill of different pointers ldx FAIL
>>>>> Unexpected error message!
>>>>> 0: (bf) r6 = r10
>>>>> 1: (07) r6 += -8
>>>>> 2: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3
>>>>> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1
>>>>> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
>>>>> 4: (07) r2 += -76
>>>>> 5: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r2
>>>>> 6: (55) if r1 != 0x0 goto pc+1
>>>>> R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=fp-76,call_-1 R6=fp-8,call_-1 R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=fp
>>>>> 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r6 +0) = r1
>>>>> 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0)
>>>>> 9: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
>>>>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
>>>>>
>>>>> 378/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period byte load permitted FAIL
>>>>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>>>>> 1: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +68)
>>>>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=1
>>>>>
>>>>> 379/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period half load permitted FAIL
>>>>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>>>>> 1: (69) r0 = *(u16 *)(r1 +68)
>>>>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=2
>>>>>
>>>>> 380/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period word load permitted FAIL
>>>>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>>>>> 1: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 +68)
>>>>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=4
>>>>>
>>>>> 381/p check bpf_perf_event_data->sample_period dword load permitted FAIL
>>>>> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0
>>>>> 1: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +68)
>>>>> invalid bpf_context access off=68 size=8
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch fix it, the fix isn't only necessary for x86_32, it will fix the
>>>>> same problem for other platforms too, if their size of bpf_user_pt_regs_t
>>>>> can't divide exactly into 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>> After mainline accept this patch, then we need to submit a sync patch
>>>>> to update the tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>>>>> index eb1b9d2..ff4c092 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_perf_event.h
>>>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> struct bpf_perf_event_data {
>>>>> bpf_user_pt_regs_t regs;
>>>>> - __u64 sample_period;
>>>>> + __u64 sample_period __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this necessary.
>>>> imo it's a bug in pe_prog_is_valid_access
>>>> that should have allowed 8-byte access to 4-byte aligned sample_period.
>>>> The access rewritten by pe_prog_convert_ctx_access anyway,
>>>> no alignment issues as far as I can see.
>>>
>>> Right, good point. Wang, could you give the below a test run:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> index 56ba0f2..95b9142 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>>> @@ -833,8 +833,14 @@ static bool pe_prog_is_valid_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type
>>> return false;
>>> if (type != BPF_READ)
>>> return false;
>>> - if (off % size != 0)
>>> - return false;
>>> + if (off % size != 0) {
>>> + if (sizeof(long) != 4)
>>> + return false;
>>> + if (size != 8)
>>> + return false;
>>> + if (off % size != 4)
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> switch (off) {
>>> case bpf_ctx_range(struct bpf_perf_event_data, sample_period):
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I have tested this patch, but test_verifier reports the same errors
>> for the five testcases.
>>
>> The reason is they all failed to pass the test of bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok.
>>
>> Thanks.
> Hi! Daniel Borkmann.
>
> Do you have any plan to fix bpf_ctx_narrow_access_ok for these problems?
Yep, sorry for the delay, will get to it during this week.
Thanks,
Daniel