Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
References: <20190813171018.28221-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1566376025.68ldwx3wc7.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.2
From:   Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bpf: handle 32-bit zext during constant blinding
In-reply-to: <1566376025.68ldwx3wc7.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:05:53 +0100
Message-ID: <87y2zmubv2.fsf@netronome.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Naveen N. Rao writes:

> Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Since BPF constant blinding is performed after the verifier pass, there
>> are certain ALU32 instructions inserted which don't have a corresponding
>> zext instruction inserted after. This is causing a kernel oops on
>> powerpc and can be reproduced by running 'test_cgroup_storage' with
>> bpf_jit_harden=2.
>> 
>> Fix this by emitting BPF_ZEXT during constant blinding if
>> prog->aux->verifier_zext is set.
>> 
>> Fixes: a4b1d3c1ddf6cb ("bpf: verifier: insert zero extension according to analysis result")
>> Reported-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
>> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> This approach (the location where zext is being introduced below, in 
>> particular) works for powerpc, but I am not entirely sure if this is 
>> sufficient for other architectures as well. This is broken on v5.3-rc4.
>
> Alexie, Daniel, Jiong,
> Any feedback on this?

The fix on BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW looks correct to me, but the two other
places looks to me is unnecessary, as those destinations are exposed to
external and if they are used as 64-bit then there will be zext inserted
for them.

Have you verified removing those two fixes will still cause the bug?

Regards,
Jiong

>
> - Naveen