diff mbox series

[bpf-next] bpf: x86: Fix BPF_FETCH atomic and/or/xor with r0 as src

Message ID 20210215160044.1108652-1-jackmanb@google.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series [bpf-next] bpf: x86: Fix BPF_FETCH atomic and/or/xor with r0 as src | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Link
netdev/fixes_present success Link
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cc_maintainers fail 1 blamed authors not CCed: yhs@fb.com; 16 maintainers not CCed: bp@alien8.de andrii@kernel.org linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org yhs@fb.com mingo@redhat.com davem@davemloft.net x86@kernel.org hpa@zytor.com yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org john.fastabend@gmail.com netdev@vger.kernel.org kpsingh@kernel.org tglx@linutronix.de songliubraving@fb.com shuah@kernel.org kafai@fb.com
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Link
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success Link
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 83 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 86 exceeds 80 columns WARNING: line length of 95 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3
netdev/header_inline success Link
netdev/stable success Stable not CCed

Commit Message

Brendan Jackman Feb. 15, 2021, 4 p.m. UTC
This code generates a CMPXCHG loop in order to implement atomic_fetch
bitwise operations. Because CMPXCHG is hard-coded to use rax (which
holds the BPF r0 value), it saves the _real_ r0 value into the
internal "ax" temporary register and restores it once the loop is
complete.

In the middle of the loop, the actual bitwise operation is performed
using src_reg. The bug occurs when src_reg is r0: as described above,
r0 has been clobbered and the real r0 value is in the ax register.

Therefore, perform this operation on the ax register instead, when
src_reg is r0.

Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions")
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
---
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                   |  7 +++---
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: 5e1d40b75ed85ecd76347273da17e5da195c3e96

Comments

KP Singh Feb. 15, 2021, 9:09 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:00 PM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
>
> This code generates a CMPXCHG loop in order to implement atomic_fetch
> bitwise operations. Because CMPXCHG is hard-coded to use rax (which
> holds the BPF r0 value), it saves the _real_ r0 value into the
> internal "ax" temporary register and restores it once the loop is
> complete.
>
> In the middle of the loop, the actual bitwise operation is performed
> using src_reg. The bug occurs when src_reg is r0: as described above,
> r0 has been clobbered and the real r0 value is in the ax register.
>
> Therefore, perform this operation on the ax register instead, when
> src_reg is r0.
>
> Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions")
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                   |  7 +++---
>  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 79e7a0ec1da5..0c9edfe42340 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -1349,6 +1349,7 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
>                             insn->imm == (BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH)) {
>                                 u8 *branch_target;
>                                 bool is64 = BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW;
> +                               u32 real_src_reg = src_reg == BPF_REG_0 ? BPF_REG_AX : src_reg;

I think it would be more readable as:

 u32 real_src_reg =  src_reg;

/* Add a comment here why this is needed */
if (src_reg == BPF_REG_0)
  real_src_reg = BPF_REG_AX;

>
>                                 /*
>                                  * Can't be implemented with a single x86 insn.
> @@ -1366,9 +1367,9 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
>                                  * put the result in the AUX_REG.
>                                  */
>                                 emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, AUX_REG, BPF_REG_0);
> -                               maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, src_reg, is64);
> +                               maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, real_src_reg, is64);
>                                 EMIT2(simple_alu_opcodes[BPF_OP(insn->imm)],
> -                                     add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, src_reg));
> +                                     add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, real_src_reg));
>                                 /* Attempt to swap in new value */
>                                 err = emit_atomic(&prog, BPF_CMPXCHG,
>                                                   dst_reg, AUX_REG, insn->off,
> @@ -1381,7 +1382,7 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
>                                  */
>                                 EMIT2(X86_JNE, -(prog - branch_target) - 2);
>                                 /* Return the pre-modification value */
> -                               emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
> +                               emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, real_src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
>                                 /* Restore R0 after clobbering RAX */
>                                 emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_AX);

[...]

>
> base-commit: 5e1d40b75ed85ecd76347273da17e5da195c3e96
> --
> 2.30.0.478.g8a0d178c01-goog
>
Brendan Jackman Feb. 16, 2021, 10:33 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 22:09, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:00 PM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This code generates a CMPXCHG loop in order to implement atomic_fetch
> > bitwise operations. Because CMPXCHG is hard-coded to use rax (which
> > holds the BPF r0 value), it saves the _real_ r0 value into the
> > internal "ax" temporary register and restores it once the loop is
> > complete.
> >
> > In the middle of the loop, the actual bitwise operation is performed
> > using src_reg. The bug occurs when src_reg is r0: as described above,
> > r0 has been clobbered and the real r0 value is in the ax register.
> >
> > Therefore, perform this operation on the ax register instead, when
> > src_reg is r0.
> >
> > Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions")
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                   |  7 +++---
> >  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > index 79e7a0ec1da5..0c9edfe42340 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > @@ -1349,6 +1349,7 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> >                             insn->imm == (BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH)) {
> >                                 u8 *branch_target;
> >                                 bool is64 = BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW;
> > +                               u32 real_src_reg = src_reg == BPF_REG_0 ? BPF_REG_AX : src_reg;
>
> I think it would be more readable as:
>
>  u32 real_src_reg =  src_reg;
>
> /* Add a comment here why this is needed */
> if (src_reg == BPF_REG_0)
>   real_src_reg = BPF_REG_AX;

Yes good idea - actually if I put it next to the relevant mov:

  /* Will need RAX as a CMPXCHG operand so save R0 */
  emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_0)
  if (src_reg == BPF_REG_0)
        real_src_reg = BPF_REG_AX;

I don't think it even needs a comment - what do you think?

> >
> >                                 /*
> >                                  * Can't be implemented with a single x86 insn.
> > @@ -1366,9 +1367,9 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> >                                  * put the result in the AUX_REG.
> >                                  */
> >                                 emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, AUX_REG, BPF_REG_0);
> > -                               maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, src_reg, is64);
> > +                               maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, real_src_reg, is64);
> >                                 EMIT2(simple_alu_opcodes[BPF_OP(insn->imm)],
> > -                                     add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, src_reg));
> > +                                     add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, real_src_reg));
> >                                 /* Attempt to swap in new value */
> >                                 err = emit_atomic(&prog, BPF_CMPXCHG,
> >                                                   dst_reg, AUX_REG, insn->off,
> > @@ -1381,7 +1382,7 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> >                                  */
> >                                 EMIT2(X86_JNE, -(prog - branch_target) - 2);
> >                                 /* Return the pre-modification value */
> > -                               emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
> > +                               emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, real_src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
> >                                 /* Restore R0 after clobbering RAX */
> >                                 emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_AX);
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > base-commit: 5e1d40b75ed85ecd76347273da17e5da195c3e96
> > --
> > 2.30.0.478.g8a0d178c01-goog
> >
KP Singh Feb. 16, 2021, 11:53 a.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:33 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 22:09, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:00 PM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This code generates a CMPXCHG loop in order to implement atomic_fetch
> > > bitwise operations. Because CMPXCHG is hard-coded to use rax (which
> > > holds the BPF r0 value), it saves the _real_ r0 value into the
> > > internal "ax" temporary register and restores it once the loop is
> > > complete.
> > >
> > > In the middle of the loop, the actual bitwise operation is performed
> > > using src_reg. The bug occurs when src_reg is r0: as described above,
> > > r0 has been clobbered and the real r0 value is in the ax register.
> > >
> > > Therefore, perform this operation on the ax register instead, when
> > > src_reg is r0.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions")
> > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                   |  7 +++---
> > >  .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > index 79e7a0ec1da5..0c9edfe42340 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> > > @@ -1349,6 +1349,7 @@ st:                       if (is_imm8(insn->off))
> > >                             insn->imm == (BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH)) {
> > >                                 u8 *branch_target;
> > >                                 bool is64 = BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW;
> > > +                               u32 real_src_reg = src_reg == BPF_REG_0 ? BPF_REG_AX : src_reg;
> >
> > I think it would be more readable as:
> >
> >  u32 real_src_reg =  src_reg;
> >
> > /* Add a comment here why this is needed */
> > if (src_reg == BPF_REG_0)
> >   real_src_reg = BPF_REG_AX;
>
> Yes good idea - actually if I put it next to the relevant mov:
>
>   /* Will need RAX as a CMPXCHG operand so save R0 */
>   emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_AX, BPF_REG_0)
>   if (src_reg == BPF_REG_0)
>         real_src_reg = BPF_REG_AX;
>
> I don't think it even needs a comment - what do you think?

Yeah moving it there makes sense and you already have a comment there.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 79e7a0ec1da5..0c9edfe42340 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1349,6 +1349,7 @@  st:			if (is_imm8(insn->off))
 			    insn->imm == (BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH)) {
 				u8 *branch_target;
 				bool is64 = BPF_SIZE(insn->code) == BPF_DW;
+				u32 real_src_reg = src_reg == BPF_REG_0 ? BPF_REG_AX : src_reg;
 
 				/*
 				 * Can't be implemented with a single x86 insn.
@@ -1366,9 +1367,9 @@  st:			if (is_imm8(insn->off))
 				 * put the result in the AUX_REG.
 				 */
 				emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, AUX_REG, BPF_REG_0);
-				maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, src_reg, is64);
+				maybe_emit_mod(&prog, AUX_REG, real_src_reg, is64);
 				EMIT2(simple_alu_opcodes[BPF_OP(insn->imm)],
-				      add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, src_reg));
+				      add_2reg(0xC0, AUX_REG, real_src_reg));
 				/* Attempt to swap in new value */
 				err = emit_atomic(&prog, BPF_CMPXCHG,
 						  dst_reg, AUX_REG, insn->off,
@@ -1381,7 +1382,7 @@  st:			if (is_imm8(insn->off))
 				 */
 				EMIT2(X86_JNE, -(prog - branch_target) - 2);
 				/* Return the pre-modification value */
-				emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
+				emit_mov_reg(&prog, is64, real_src_reg, BPF_REG_0);
 				/* Restore R0 after clobbering RAX */
 				emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_AX);
 				break;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c
index 1bdc8e6684f7..fe4bb70eb9c5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_and.c
@@ -75,3 +75,26 @@ 
 	},
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
+{
+	"BPF_ATOMIC_AND with fetch - r0 as source reg",
+	.insns = {
+		/* val = 0x110; */
+		BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0x110),
+		/* old = atomic_fetch_and(&val, 0x011); */
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0x011),
+		BPF_ATOMIC_OP(BPF_DW, BPF_AND | BPF_FETCH, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+		/* if (old != 0x110) exit(3); */
+		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0x110, 2),
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 3),
+		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		/* if (val != 0x010) exit(2); */
+		BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0x010, 2),
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 2),
+		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		/* exit(0); */
+		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.result = ACCEPT,
+},