[PATCH arm64-next] net: bpf: arm64: address randomize and write protect JIT code

[dborkman@redhat.com (Daniel Borkmann)]

On 09/12/2014 06:46 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 05:21:27PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 09/12/2014 06:03 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 08:11:37AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>    Will, Catalin, Dave, this is more or less a heads-up: when net-next and
>>>>    arm64-next tree will get both merged into Linus' tree, we will run into
>>>>    a 'silent' merge conflict until someone actually runs eBPF JIT on ARM64
>>>>    and might notice (I presume) an oops when JIT is freeing bpf_prog. I'd
>>>>    assume nobody actually _runs_ linux-next, but not sure about that though.
>>>
>>> Some people do.
>>>
>>>>    How do we handle this? Would I need to resend this patch when the time
>>>>    comes or would you ARM64 guys take care of it automagically? ;)
>>>
>>> I think we could disable BPF for arm64 until -rc1 and re-enable it
>>> together with this patch.
>>
>> Ok, yes, that would mitigate it a bit. Sounds fine to me.
>>
>>> One comment below:
>>>
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> [...]
>>>> +static void jit_fill_hole(void *area, unsigned int size)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	/* Insert illegal UND instructions. */
>>>> +	u32 *ptr, fill_ins = 0xe7ffffff;
>>>
>>> On arm64 we don't have a guaranteed undefined instruction space (and
>>> Will tells me that on Thumb-2 for the 32-bit arm port it actually is a
>>> valid instruction, it seems that you used the same value).
>>
>> Hm, ok, the boards we've tried out and where Zi tested it too, it worked.
>
> So, if I try this:
>
> $ echo 0xffffffe7 | xxd -r > test.bin
> $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-objdump -m arm -D -b binary test.bin
> ...
>     0:   e7ffffff        udf     #65535  ; 0xffff
>
> Do you use the same constant on arm32?

I was using something along that lines, but I guess I missed
something:

# cat foo.S
.globl foobar
foobar:
.word 0xe7ffffff
# cat bar.c
#include <stdio.h>
extern void foobar(void);
int main(void)
{
     foobar();
     printf("!ok\n");
     return 0;
}
# as foo.S -o foo.o
# gcc bar.c foo.o -o bar
# ./bar
Illegal instruction

>>> I think the only guaranteed way is to use the BRK #imm instruction but
>>> it requires some changes to the handling code as it is currently used
>>> for kgdb (unless you can use two instructions for filling in which could
>>> generate a NULL pointer access).
>>
>> The trade-off would be that if we align on 8, it would certainly increase
>> the probability to jump to the right offset. Note, on x86_64 we have no
>> alignment requirements, hence 1, and on s390x only alignment of 2.
>>
>> So, on that few (?) boards where UND would be a valid instruction [ as
>> opposed to crash the kernel ], would it translate into a NOP and just
>> 'walk' from there into the JIT image?
>
> On current ARMv8 CPU implementations, the above constant is unallocated
> in the A64 instruction space. But you never know, it may be allocated in
> the future.
>
> I think it's easier if you just use something like BRK #0x100 (opcode
> 0xd4202000) which would trigger a fault in the kernel (kgdb uses #imm
> 0x400 and 0x401).
>
> An unallocated BRK would trigger a fault via do_debug_exception ->
> brk_handler and panic the kernel.

Okay, that's fine by me, I'll just update s/0xe7ffffff/0xd4202000/.

Do you want me to use the same suggestion for arm32 as well as it
would be less fragile?

Last but not least ;), if I would resend it today, would you queue
it for later on, or do you want to handle it differently?

Thanks again,
Daniel