From patchwork Fri Oct 25 01:32:32 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Hou Tao X-Patchwork-Id: 13849893 X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (dggsgout11.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477FA125DE for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729819232; cv=none; b=ewfaRZVHmKJjbLkG5/vR35jQnIE1RHrlL6fG8vC5sfW+0Y9aiVy5fLvO6Uz1kDtyUBXvzW4pL59oUXXhu7TT8K0pSjKGNPYcHm74yLUZqo2C+cMB+QGjYXyiNLLYlulUpf8nxHQdCnNljZ46UakWN1DZRgotWY/fnaqhbLiNOYA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729819232; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CinLmLr0pORA5SAsmWoOfUlUqFht48LN68eRQf75zlY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=OrxjW5s04ZdlstugZvHGiRg9gcBHuzk/oktDxePqzt1rsl+N0MddcBV+NjOwWI6iJzsGXAIDnA92GHUbXH0Vw/Vf1el+woC779TrDblke+YKa/JP8JCofTIWDDvhJWwWbEjjhgdRQ6EGbPojfMuVby24LMswN3aZQ5+ohos+1u8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.235]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XZQ261MdRz4f3jt6 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:20:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.128]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD961A0568 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:20:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from huaweicloud.com (unknown [10.175.124.27]) by APP4 (Coremail) with SMTP id gCh0CgCn28dU8hpnhzUqFA--.57458S8; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:20:26 +0800 (CST) From: Hou Tao To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: Martin KaFai Lau , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Eduard Zingerman , Song Liu , Hao Luo , Yonghong Song , Daniel Borkmann , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Jiri Olsa , John Fastabend , Yafang Shao , houtao1@huawei.com, xukuohai@huawei.com Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 4/5] bpf: Use __u64 to save the bits in bits iterator Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 09:32:32 +0800 Message-Id: <20241025013233.804027-5-houtao@huaweicloud.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.29.2 In-Reply-To: <20241025013233.804027-1-houtao@huaweicloud.com> References: <20241025013233.804027-1-houtao@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CM-TRANSID: gCh0CgCn28dU8hpnhzUqFA--.57458S8 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxCw17Gry5Xr1DJw4UGFyrXrb_yoW5tw1fpF 4rCw1qyrW8tFW2yw1avrWUWa45Awn7Aay8GFZ3WrWrWF47Xr98uryUK345Xan8Cry8ZF42 vr9093sxCFWUJaDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPSb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26rWj6s0DM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28IrcIa0xkI8VA2jI8067AKxVWUAV Cq3wA2048vs2IY020Ec7CjxVAFwI0_Xr0E3s1l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM28CjxkF64kEwVA0 rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVW7JVWDJwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267 AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E 14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7 xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Y z7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lFIxGxcIEc7CjxVA2Y2ka0xkIwI1lc7CjxVAaw2 AFwI0_Jw0_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAq x4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r4a6r W5MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF 7I0E14v26F4j6r4UJwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI 0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVW8JrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7I U1aLvJUUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: xkrx3t3r6k3tpzhluzxrxghudrp/ X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net From: Hou Tao On 32-bit hosts (e.g., arm32), when a bpf program passes a u64 to bpf_iter_bits_new(), bpf_iter_bits_new() will use bits_copy to store the content of the u64. However, bits_copy is only 4 bytes, leading to stack corruption. The straightforward solution would be to replace u64 with unsigned long in bpf_iter_bits_new(). However, this introduces confusion and problems for 32-bit hosts because the size of ulong in bpf program is 8 bytes, but it is treated as 4-bytes after passed to bpf_iter_bits_new(). Fix it by changing the type of both bits and bit_count from unsigned long to u64. However, the change is not enough. The main reason is that bpf_iter_bits_next() uses find_next_bit() to find the next bit and the pointer passed to find_next_bit() is an unsigned long pointer instead of a u64 pointer. For 32-bit little-endian host, it is fine but it is not the case for 32-bit big-endian host. Because under 32-bit big-endian host, the first iterated unsigned long will be the bits 32-63 of the u64 instead of the expected bits 0-31. Therefore, in addition to changing the type, swap the two unsigned longs within the u64 for 32-bit big-endian host. Signed-off-by: Hou Tao --- kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c index daec74820dbe..824718349958 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c @@ -2855,13 +2855,36 @@ struct bpf_iter_bits { struct bpf_iter_bits_kern { union { - unsigned long *bits; - unsigned long bits_copy; + __u64 *bits; + __u64 bits_copy; }; int nr_bits; int bit; } __aligned(8); +/* On 64-bit hosts, unsigned long and u64 have the same size, so passing + * a u64 pointer and an unsigned long pointer to find_next_bit() will + * return the same result, as both point to the same 8-byte area. + * + * For 32-bit little-endian hosts, using a u64 pointer or unsigned long + * pointer also makes no difference. This is because the first iterated + * unsigned long is composed of bits 0-31 of the u64 and the second unsigned + * long is composed of bits 32-63 of the u64. + * + * However, for 32-bit big-endian hosts, this is not the case. The first + * iterated unsigned long will be bits 32-63 of the u64, so swap these two + * ulong values within the u64. + */ +static void swap_ulong_in_u64(u64 *bits, unsigned int nr) +{ +#if !defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(__BIG_ENDIAN) + unsigned int i; + + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) + bits[i] = (bits[i] >> 32) | ((u64)(u32)bits[i] << 32); +#endif +} + /** * bpf_iter_bits_new() - Initialize a new bits iterator for a given memory area * @it: The new bpf_iter_bits to be created @@ -2906,6 +2929,8 @@ bpf_iter_bits_new(struct bpf_iter_bits *it, const u64 *unsafe_ptr__ign, u32 nr_w if (err) return -EFAULT; + swap_ulong_in_u64(&kit->bits_copy, nr_words); + kit->nr_bits = nr_bits; return 0; } @@ -2924,6 +2949,8 @@ bpf_iter_bits_new(struct bpf_iter_bits *it, const u64 *unsafe_ptr__ign, u32 nr_w return err; } + swap_ulong_in_u64(kit->bits, nr_words); + kit->nr_bits = nr_bits; return 0; } @@ -2941,7 +2968,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_bits_next(struct bpf_iter_bits *it) { struct bpf_iter_bits_kern *kit = (void *)it; int bit = kit->bit, nr_bits = kit->nr_bits; - const unsigned long *bits; + const void *bits; if (!nr_bits || bit >= nr_bits) return NULL;