On 7/13/21 10:39 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:57:35PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
During testing of f263a81451c1 ("bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly
and fix use-after-free") under various failure conditions, for example, when
jit_subprogs() fails and tries to clean up the program to be run under the
interpreter, we ran into the following freeze:
[...]
#127/8 tailcall_bpf2bpf_3:FAIL
[...]
[ 92.041251] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ___bpf_prog_run+0x1b9d/0x2e20
[ 92.042408] Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800da67f68 by task test_progs/682
[ 92.043707]
[ 92.044030] CPU: 1 PID: 682 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G O 5.13.0-53301-ge6c08cb33a30-dirty #87
[ 92.045542] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
[ 92.046785] Call Trace:
[ 92.047171] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.047773] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
[ 92.048389] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.049019] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[...] // few hundred [similar] lines more
[ 92.659025] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.659845] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.660738] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
[ 92.661528] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.662378] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50
[ 92.663221] ? print_usage_bug+0x50/0x50
[ 92.664077] ? bpf_ksym_find+0x9c/0xe0
[ 92.664887] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.665624] ? kernel_text_address+0xf5/0x100
[ 92.666529] ? __kernel_text_address+0xe/0x30
[ 92.667725] ? unwind_get_return_address+0x2f/0x50
[ 92.668854] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20
[ 92.670185] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.671130] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.672020] ? __bpf_prog_run_args32+0x8b/0xb0
[ 92.672860] ? __bpf_prog_run_args64+0xc0/0xc0
[ 92.675159] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.677074] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd5/0x130
[ 92.678662] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x15d4/0x2e20
[ 92.680046] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.681285] ? __bpf_prog_run32+0x6b/0x90
[ 92.682601] ? __bpf_prog_run64+0x90/0x90
[ 92.683636] ? lock_downgrade+0x370/0x370
[ 92.684647] ? mark_held_locks+0x44/0x90
[ 92.685652] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.686752] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100
[ 92.688004] ? ktime_get+0x117/0x130
[ 92.688573] ? __cant_migrate+0x2b/0x80
[ 92.689192] ? bpf_test_run+0x2f4/0x510
[ 92.689869] ? bpf_test_timer_continue+0x1c0/0x1c0
[ 92.690856] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
[ 92.691506] ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x61/0x80
[ 92.692128] ? eth_type_trans+0x128/0x240
[ 92.692737] ? __build_skb+0x46/0x50
[ 92.693252] ? bpf_prog_test_run_skb+0x65e/0xc50
[ 92.693954] ? bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2d0/0x2d0
[ 92.694639] ? __fget_light+0xa1/0x100
[ 92.695162] ? bpf_prog_inc+0x23/0x30
[ 92.695685] ? __sys_bpf+0xb40/0x2c80
[ 92.696324] ? bpf_link_get_from_fd+0x90/0x90
[ 92.697150] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90
[ 92.698007] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x124/0x220
[ 92.699045] ? finish_task_switch+0xe6/0x370
[ 92.700072] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x79/0x100
[ 92.701233] ? finish_task_switch+0x11d/0x370
[ 92.702264] ? __switch_to+0x2c0/0x740
[ 92.703148] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90
[ 92.704155] ? __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x50
[ 92.705146] ? do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80
[ 92.706953] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[...]
Turns out that the program rejection from e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls
in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT") is buggy since env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable
is never true. Commit ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall
handling in JIT") added a tracker into check_max_stack_depth() which propagates
the tail_call_reachable condition throughout the subprograms. This info is then
assigned to the subprogram's func[i]->aux->tail_call_reachable. However, in the
case of the rejection check upon JIT failure, env->prog->aux->tail_call_reachable
is used. func[0]->aux->tail_call_reachable which represents the main program's
information did not propagate this to the outer env->prog->aux, though. Add this
propagation into check_max_stack_depth() where it needs to belong so that the
check can be done reliably.
Fixes: ebf7d1f508a7 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT")
Fixes: e411901c0b77 ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 42a4063de7cd..9de3c9c3267c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3677,6 +3677,8 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
if (tail_call_reachable)
for (j = 0; j < frame; j++)
subprog[ret_prog[j]].tail_call_reachable = true;
+ if (subprog[0].tail_call_reachable)
This could be just:
if (tail_call_reachable)
But what you propose is fine to me as well. Not sure how we missed it.
Acked-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks! Yeah I wanted to also use subprog[0] here given this really denotes
the main prog. We have a similar case elsewhere too where we set the stack
depth for env->prog->aux->stack_depth from env->subprog_info[0].stack_depth.
With that I expect that we bail out in fixup_call_args() right?
Yes, with that in place we now properly bail out for such case.
Oh and John's f263a81451c1 ("bpf: Track subprog poke descriptors correctly
and fix use-after-free") landed in my junk folder, heh, that's why I
stayed silent and didn't participate in further review. Need to talk to
IT.
Ah too bad, okay, in case you still spot anything in f263a81451c1, let us know.
Thanks a lot,
Daniel
