[ Upstream commit
6764e767f4af1e35f87f3497e1182d945de37f93 ]
__bpf_prog_enter_recur() assigns bpf_tramp_run_ctx::saved_run_ctx before
performing the recursion check which means in case of a recursion
__bpf_prog_exit_recur() uses the previously set bpf_tramp_run_ctx::saved_run_ctx
value.
__bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur() assigns bpf_tramp_run_ctx::saved_run_ctx
after the recursion check which means in case of a recursion
__bpf_prog_exit_sleepable_recur() uses an uninitialized value. This does not
look right. If I read the entry trampoline code right, then bpf_tramp_run_ctx
isn't initialized upfront.
Align __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur() with __bpf_prog_enter_recur() and
set bpf_tramp_run_ctx::saved_run_ctx before the recursion check is made.
Remove the assignment of saved_run_ctx in kern_sys_bpf() since it happens
a few cycles later.
Fixes: e384c7b7b46d0 ("bpf, x86: Create bpf_tramp_run_ctx on the caller thread's stack")
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230830080405.251926-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
}
run_ctx.bpf_cookie = 0;
- run_ctx.saved_run_ctx = NULL;
if (!__bpf_prog_enter_sleepable_recur(prog, &run_ctx)) {
/* recursion detected */
__bpf_prog_exit_sleepable_recur(prog, 0, &run_ctx);
migrate_disable();
might_fault();
+ run_ctx->saved_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx->run_ctx);
+
if (unlikely(this_cpu_inc_return(*(prog->active)) != 1)) {
bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(prog);
return 0;
}
-
- run_ctx->saved_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx->run_ctx);
-
return bpf_prog_start_time();
}