Michael Ellerman wrote:
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 10/25/21 8:15 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Hari Bathini wrote:
Running program with bpf-to-bpf function calls results in data access
exception (0x300) with the below call trace:
[c000000000113f28] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x238/0x750 (unreliable)
[c00000000037d2f8] bpf_check+0x2008/0x2710
[c000000000360050] bpf_prog_load+0xb00/0x13a0
[c000000000361d94] __sys_bpf+0x6f4/0x27c0
[c000000000363f0c] sys_bpf+0x2c/0x40
[c000000000032434] system_call_exception+0x164/0x330
[c00000000000c1e8] system_call_vectored_common+0xe8/0x278
as bpf_int_jit_compile() tries writing to write protected JIT code
location during the extra pass.
Fix it by holding off write protection of JIT code until the extra
pass, where branch target addresses fixup happens.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 62e3d4210ac9 ("powerpc/bpf: Write protect JIT code")
Signed-off-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Thanks for the fix!
Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
LGTM, I presume this fix will be routed via Michael.
Thanks for reviewing, I've picked it up.
BPF selftests have plenty of BPF-to-BPF calls in there, too bad this was
caught so late. :/
Yeah :/
STRICT_KERNEL_RWX is not on by default in all our defconfigs, so that's
probably why no one caught it.
Yeah, sorry - we should have caught this sooner.
I used to run the BPF selftests but they stopped building for me a while
back, I'll see if I can get them going again.
Ravi had started looking into getting the selftests working well before
he left. I will take a look at this.
Thanks,
Naveen
