On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 11:57 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:18 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 02:46:43PM +0800, Hao Sun wrote: > > > Hao Sun <sunhao.th@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年12月6日周二 11:28写道： > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The following crash can be triggered with the BPF prog provided. > > > > It seems the verifier passed some invalid progs. I will try to simplify > > > > the C reproducer, for now, the following can reproduce this: > > > > > > > > HEAD commit: ab0350c743d5 selftests/bpf: Fix conflicts with built-in > > > > functions in bpf_iter_ksym > > > > git tree: bpf-next > > > > console log: https://pastebin.com/raw/87RCSnCs > > > > kernel config: https://pastebin.com/raw/rZdWLcgK > > > > Syz reproducer: https://pastebin.com/raw/4kbwhdEv > > > > C reproducer: https://pastebin.com/raw/GFfDn2Gk > > > > > > > > > > Simplified C reproducer: https://pastebin.com/raw/aZgLcPvW > > > > > > Only two syscalls are required to reproduce this, seems it's an issue > > > in XDP test run. Essentially, the reproducer just loads a very simple > > > prog and tests run repeatedly and concurrently: > > > > > > r0 = bpf$PROG_LOAD(0x5, &(0x7f0000000640)=@base={0x6, 0xb, > > > &(0x7f0000000500)}, 0x80) > > > bpf$BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN(0xa, &(0x7f0000000140)={r0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, > > > 0x0, 0xffffffff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, 0x48) > > > > > > Loaded prog: > > > 0: (18) r0 = 0x0 > > > 2: (18) r6 = 0x0 > > > 4: (18) r7 = 0x0 > > > 6: (18) r8 = 0x0 > > > 8: (18) r9 = 0x0 > > > 10: (95) exit > > > > hi, > > I can reproduce with your config.. it seems related to the > > recent static call change: > > c86df29d11df bpf: Convert BPF_DISPATCHER to use static_call() (not ftrace) > > > > I can't reproduce when I revert that commit.. Peter, any idea? > > Jiri, > > I see your tested-by tag on Peter's commit c86df29d11df. > I assume you're actually tested it, but > this syzbot oops shows that even empty bpf prog crashes, > so there is something wrong with that commit. > > What is the difference between this new kconfig and old one that > you've tested? > > I'm trying to understand the severity of the issues and > whether we need to revert that commit asap since the merge window > is about to start. Jiri, Peter, ping. cc-ing Thorsten, since he's tracking it now. The config has CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT=y. Is it related?
