From: daniel@iogearbox•net (Daniel Borkmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: net: bpf: don't BUG() on large shifts
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:44:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <568FE77A.3090107@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160108155837.GA28291@debian>
On 01/08/2016 04:58 PM, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:48:48PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> The question is what is less risky in terms of uabi. To reject such
>> filters with such K shift vals upfront in verifier, or to just allow
>> [0, reg_size - 1] values and handle outliers silently. I think both
>> might be possible, the latter just needs to be clearly specified in
>> the documentation somewhere. If we go for the latter, then probably
>> just rewriting that K value as masked one might seem better. Broken
>> programs might then still be loadable (and still be broken) ... afaik
>> in case of register (case of shifts with X) with large shift vals
>> ARM64 is doing 'modulo reg_size' implicitly.
>
> The case of what happens with such shifts with X is also already
> architecture-specific, even when using the interpreters. For example, the
> following program returns 1 on ARM64 but 0 on ARM.
>
> BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM, 1),
> BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 32),
> BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X, 0),
> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0)
>
> To start rejecting large K shifts in the verifier because they are
> architecture-specific while continuing to allow the equally
> architecture-specific large X shifts (because we can't verify them
> statically) would be rather inconsistent.
Hmm, yeah, agree with you that this would be inconsistent. Last time we
actually had this topic [1], I believe the consensus was that such BPF
programs are to be considered "undefined".
In that case, I think just masking the K value silently into its allowed
range for classic and eBPF might be better. It would eventually not be
uniform with regards to shifts where X is involved, but if we consider
it "undefined" behaviour, such uniformity is probably not needed.
> If it is desired to enforce uniformity across architectures despite the
> risk for subtly changing the behaviour of existing programs, then the
> desired uniform semantics of these shifts should really be implemented
> both for the K and X shifts, which would mean modifiying the interpreter
> and the various arch JITs too.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/4/148
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-08 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-05 17:39 [PATCH] arm64: net: bpf: don't BUG() on large shifts Rabin Vincent
2016-01-05 17:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-01-06 20:31 ` Rabin Vincent
2016-01-06 22:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-01-07 11:07 ` David Laight
2016-01-07 12:48 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-01-08 15:58 ` Rabin Vincent
2016-01-08 16:44 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2016-01-08 19:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-01-08 15:44 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-08 19:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-01-12 17:17 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-12 19:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-01-13 4:45 ` Z Lim
2016-01-13 12:08 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=568FE77A.3090107@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox$(echo .)net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox