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;
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:42:12 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Regression fix for bpf in v5.3 (was Re: [RFC PATCH] bpf: handle
 32-bit zext during constant blinding)
To:     Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190813171018.28221-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <87d0gy6cj6.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <87k1b6yeh1.fsf@netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <87k1b6yeh1.fsf@netronome.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <1566414605.l9kcxxdjo7.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jiong Wang wrote:
> 
> Michael Ellerman writes:
> 
>> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Any comment on this?
> 
> Have commented on https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=156637836024743&w=2
> 
> The fix looks correct to me on "BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW", but looks
> unnecessary on two other places. It would be great if you or Naveen could
> confirm it.

Jiong,
Thanks for the review. I can now see why the other two changes are not 
necessary. I will post a follow-on patch.

Thanks!
- Naveen