Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:
[ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1
[ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP
[ 6525.741609] Modules linked in: nls_utf8 cifs libdes libarc4 dns_resolver fscache binfmt_misc nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat aes_ce_blk crypto_simd cryptd aes_ce_cipher ghash_ce gf128mul efi_pstore sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce evdev efivars efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 btrfs blake2b_generic xor xor_neon zstd_compress raid6_pq libcrc32c crc32c_generic ahci xhci_pci libahci xhci_hcd igb libata i2c_algo_bit nvme realtek usbcore nvme_core scsi_mod t10_pi netsec mdio_devres of_mdio gpio_keys fixed_phy libphy gpio_mb86s7x
[ 6525.787760] CPU: 3 PID: 7881 Comm: test_verifier Tainted: G W 5.9.0-rc1+ #47
[ 6525.796111] Hardware name: Socionext SynQuacer E-series DeveloperBox, BIOS build #1 Jun 6 2020
[ 6525.804812] pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--)
[ 6525.810390] pc : bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4
[ 6525.815613] lr : bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c
[ 6525.820832] sp : ffff8000130cbb80
[ 6525.824141] x29: ffff8000130cbbb0 x28: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.829451] x27: 000005ef6fcbf39b x26: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.834759] x25: ffff8000130cbb80 x24: ffff800011dc7038
[ 6525.840067] x23: ffff8000130cbd00 x22: ffff0008f624d080
[ 6525.845375] x21: 0000000000000001 x20: ffff800011dc7000
[ 6525.850682] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.855990] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.861298] x15: 0000000000000000 x14: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.866606] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
[ 6525.871913] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffff8000000a660c
[ 6525.877220] x9 : ffff800010951810 x8 : ffff8000130cbc38
[ 6525.882528] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000009864cfa881
[ 6525.887836] x5 : 00ffffffffffffff x4 : 002880ba1a0b3e9f
[ 6525.893144] x3 : 0000000000000018 x2 : ffff8000000a4374
[ 6525.898452] x1 : 000000000000000a x0 : 0000000000000009
[ 6525.903760] Call trace:
[ 6525.906202] bpf_prog_c3d01833289b6311_F+0xc8/0x9f4
[ 6525.911076] bpf_prog_d53bb52e3f4483f9_F+0x38/0xc8c
[ 6525.915957] bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func+0x14/0x20
[ 6525.920398] bpf_test_run+0x70/0x1b0
[ 6525.923969] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xec/0x190
[ 6525.928326] __do_sys_bpf+0xc88/0x1b28
[ 6525.932072] __arm64_sys_bpf+0x24/0x30
[ 6525.935820] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x70/0x168
[ 6525.940607] do_el0_svc+0x28/0x88
[ 6525.943920] el0_sync_handler+0x88/0x190
[ 6525.947838] el0_sync+0x140/0x180
[ 6525.951154] Code: d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 d4202000 (d4202000)
[ 6525.957249] ---[ end trace cecc3f93b14927e2 ]---
The reason seems to be the offset[] creation and usage ctx->offset[]
while building the eBPF body. The code currently omits the first
instruction, since build_insn() will increase our ctx->idx before saving
it. When "taken loop with back jump to 1st insn" test runs it will
eventually call bpf2a64_offset(-1, 2, ctx). Since negative indexing is
permitted, the current outcome depends on the value stored in
ctx->offset[-1], which has nothing to do with our array.
If the value happens to be 0 the tests will work. If not this error
triggers.
So let's fix it by creating the ctx->offset[] correctly in the first
place and account for the extra instruction while calculating the arm
instruction offsets.
Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index f8912e45be7a..5891733a9f39 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -143,9 +143,13 @@ static inline void emit_addr_mov_i64(const int reg, const u64 val,
}
}
-static inline int bpf2a64_offset(int bpf_to, int bpf_from,
+static inline int bpf2a64_offset(int bpf_insn, int off,
const struct jit_ctx *ctx)
{
+ /* arm64 offset is relative to the branch instruction */
+ int bpf_from = bpf_insn + 1;
+ /* BPF JMP offset is relative to the next instruction */
+ int bpf_to = bpf_insn + off + 1;
int to = ctx->offset[bpf_to];
/* -1 to account for the Branch instruction */
int from = ctx->offset[bpf_from] - 1;
@@ -642,7 +646,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx,
/* JUMP off */
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JA:
- jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i + off, i, ctx);
+ jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i, off, ctx);
check_imm26(jmp_offset);
emit(A64_B(jmp_offset), ctx);
break;
@@ -669,7 +673,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx,
case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSLE | BPF_X:
emit(A64_CMP(is64, dst, src), ctx);
emit_cond_jmp:
- jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i + off, i, ctx);
+ jmp_offset = bpf2a64_offset(i, off, ctx);
check_imm19(jmp_offset);
switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
case BPF_JEQ:
@@ -912,18 +916,21 @@ static int build_body(struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool extra_pass)
const struct bpf_insn *insn = &prog->insnsi[i];
int ret;
+ if (ctx->image == NULL)
+ ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx;
+
ret = build_insn(insn, ctx, extra_pass);
if (ret > 0) {
i++;
if (ctx->image == NULL)
- ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx;
+ ctx->offset[i] = ctx->offset[i - 1];
continue;
}
- if (ctx->image == NULL)
- ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx;
if (ret)
return ret;
}
+ if (ctx->image == NULL)
+ ctx->offset[i] = ctx->idx;
return 0;
}
@@ -1002,7 +1009,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
memset(&ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx));
ctx.prog = prog;
- ctx.offset = kcalloc(prog->len, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
+ ctx.offset = kcalloc(prog->len + 1, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
if (ctx.offset == NULL) {
prog = orig_prog;
goto out_off;
@@ -1089,7 +1096,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
prog->jited_len = prog_size;
if (!prog->is_func || extra_pass) {
- bpf_prog_fill_jited_linfo(prog, ctx.offset);
+ bpf_prog_fill_jited_linfo(prog, ctx.offset + 1);
out_off:
kfree(ctx.offset);
kfree(jit_data);
--
2.28.0
