From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: daniel@iogearbox.net, davem@davemloft.net,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "bpf, s390: fix jit branch offset related to ldimm64" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:21:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1502468466156186@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
bpf, s390: fix jit branch offset related to ldimm64
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
bpf-s390-fix-jit-branch-offset-related-to-ldimm64.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From foo@baz Fri Aug 11 09:10:20 PDT 2017
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:20:54 +0200
Subject: bpf, s390: fix jit branch offset related to ldimm64
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
[ Upstream commit b0a0c2566f28e71e5e32121992ac8060cec75510 ]
While testing some other work that required JIT modifications, I
run into test_bpf causing a hang when JIT enabled on s390. The
problematic test case was the one from ddc665a4bb4b (bpf, arm64:
fix jit branch offset related to ldimm64), and turns out that we
do have a similar issue on s390 as well. In bpf_jit_prog() we
update next instruction address after returning from bpf_jit_insn()
with an insn_count. bpf_jit_insn() returns either -1 in case of
error (e.g. unsupported insn), 1 or 2. The latter is only the
case for ldimm64 due to spanning 2 insns, however, next address
is only set to i + 1 not taking actual insn_count into account,
thus fix is to use insn_count instead of 1. bpf_jit_enable in
mode 2 provides also disasm on s390:
Before fix:
000003ff800349b6: a7f40003 brc 15,3ff800349bc ; target
000003ff800349ba: 0000 unknown
000003ff800349bc: e3b0f0700024 stg %r11,112(%r15)
000003ff800349c2: e3e0f0880024 stg %r14,136(%r15)
000003ff800349c8: 0db0 basr %r11,%r0
000003ff800349ca: c0ef00000000 llilf %r14,0
000003ff800349d0: e320b0360004 lg %r2,54(%r11)
000003ff800349d6: e330b03e0004 lg %r3,62(%r11)
000003ff800349dc: ec23ffeda065 clgrj %r2,%r3,10,3ff800349b6 ; jmp
000003ff800349e2: e3e0b0460004 lg %r14,70(%r11)
000003ff800349e8: e3e0b04e0004 lg %r14,78(%r11)
000003ff800349ee: b904002e lgr %r2,%r14
000003ff800349f2: e3b0f0700004 lg %r11,112(%r15)
000003ff800349f8: e3e0f0880004 lg %r14,136(%r15)
000003ff800349fe: 07fe bcr 15,%r14
After fix:
000003ff80ef3db4: a7f40003 brc 15,3ff80ef3dba
000003ff80ef3db8: 0000 unknown
000003ff80ef3dba: e3b0f0700024 stg %r11,112(%r15)
000003ff80ef3dc0: e3e0f0880024 stg %r14,136(%r15)
000003ff80ef3dc6: 0db0 basr %r11,%r0
000003ff80ef3dc8: c0ef00000000 llilf %r14,0
000003ff80ef3dce: e320b0360004 lg %r2,54(%r11)
000003ff80ef3dd4: e330b03e0004 lg %r3,62(%r11)
000003ff80ef3dda: ec230006a065 clgrj %r2,%r3,10,3ff80ef3de6 ; jmp
000003ff80ef3de0: e3e0b0460004 lg %r14,70(%r11)
000003ff80ef3de6: e3e0b04e0004 lg %r14,78(%r11) ; target
000003ff80ef3dec: b904002e lgr %r2,%r14
000003ff80ef3df0: e3b0f0700004 lg %r11,112(%r15)
000003ff80ef3df6: e3e0f0880004 lg %r14,136(%r15)
000003ff80ef3dfc: 07fe bcr 15,%r14
test_bpf.ko suite runs fine after the fix.
Fixes: 054623105728 ("s390/bpf: Add s390x eBPF JIT compiler backend")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -1252,7 +1252,8 @@ static int bpf_jit_prog(struct bpf_jit *
insn_count = bpf_jit_insn(jit, fp, i);
if (insn_count < 0)
return -1;
- jit->addrs[i + 1] = jit->prg; /* Next instruction address */
+ /* Next instruction address */
+ jit->addrs[i + insn_count] = jit->prg;
}
bpf_jit_epilogue(jit);
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from daniel@iogearbox.net are
queue-4.9/bpf-s390-fix-jit-branch-offset-related-to-ldimm64.patch
reply other threads:[~2017-08-11 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1502468466156186@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.