Re: [PATCH] Revert "bpf: Take return from set_memory_rox() into account with bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro()" for linux-6.6.37

LEROY Christophe
2024-07-09T10:03:41Z

Le 09/07/2024 à 11:39, Greg KH a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:24:54AM +0000, LEROY Christophe wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 09/07/2024 à 11:15, Greg KH a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 03:12:55PM +0000, LEROY Christophe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 08/07/2024 à 14:36, Greg KH a écrit :
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 03:34:15PM +0800, WangYuli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024/7/6 17:30, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> This makes it sound like you are reverting this because of a build
>>>>>>> error, which is not the case here, right? Isn't this because of the
>>>>>>> powerpc issue reported here:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240705203413.wbv2nw3747vjeibk@altlinux.org
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it only occurs on ARM64 architecture. The reason is that before being
>>>>>> modified, the function
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro() in arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +1651
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was introduced with __must_check, which is defined as
>>>>>> __attribute__((__warn_unused_result__)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, at this point, calling bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header)
>>>>>> coincidentally results in an unused-result
>>>>>>
>>>>>> warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, thanks, but why is no one else seeing this in their testing?
>>>>
>>>> Probably the configs used by robots do not activate BPF JIT ?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, why not just backport the single missing arm64 commit,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upstream commit 1dad391daef1 ("bpf, arm64: use bpf_prog_pack for memory
>>>>>> management") is part of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a larger change that involves multiple commits. It's not an isolated commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could certainly backport all of them to solve this problem, buthas it's not
>>>>>> the simplest solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> reverting the change feels wrong in that you will still have the bug
>>>>> present that it was trying to solve, right? If so, can you then provide
>>>>> a working version?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, by reverting the change you "punish" all architectures because
>>>> arm64 hasn't properly been backported, is it fair ?
>>>>
>>>> In fact, when I implemented commit e60adf513275 ("bpf: Take return from
>>>> set_memory_rox() into account with bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro()"), we had
>>>> the following users for function bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro() :
>>>>
>>>> $ git grep bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro e60adf513275~
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/parisc/net/bpf_jit_core.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(jit_data->header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> e60adf513275~:include/linux/filter.h:static inline void
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(struct bpf_binary_header *hdr)
>>>>
>>>> But when commit 08f6c05feb1d ("bpf: Take return from set_memory_rox()
>>>> into account with bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro()") was applied, we had one
>>>> more user which is arm64:
>>>>
>>>> $ git grep bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro 08f6c05feb1d~
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/mips/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/parisc/net/bpf_jit_core.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(jit_data->header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_64.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(header);
>>>> 08f6c05feb1d~:include/linux/filter.h:static inline void
>>>> bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro(struct bpf_binary_header *hdr)
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, commit 08f6c05feb1d should have included a backport for arm64.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, I agree with Greg, the correct fix should be to backport to
>>>> ARM64 the changes done on other architectures in order to properly
>>>> handle return of set_memory_rox() in bpf_jit_binary_lock_ro().
>>>
>>> Ok, but it looks like due to this series, the powerpc tree is crashing
>>> at the first bpf load, so something went wrong. Let me go revert these
>>> 4 patches for now, and then I will be glad to queue them up if you can
>>> provide a working series for all arches.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough, indeed I think for powerpc it probably also relies on more
>> changes, so both ARM and POWERPC need a carefull backport.
>>
>> I can look at it, but can you tell why it was decided to apply that
>> commit on stable at the first place ? Is there a particular need ?
>
> Based on the changelog text itself, it fixes an issue and was flagged as
> something to be backported.
>
> If this isn't needed in 6.6.y, then no worries at all, we can just drop
> them and be happy :)
>

In fact this change is part of a long-term hardening effort as described
in https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/7

I'm not sure it's worth picking it up on its own, so I propose to not do
anything unless someone raises their hand.

Christophe