Commit 91097fbe authored by Andrii Nakryiko's avatar Andrii Nakryiko Committed by Daniel Borkmann

btf: fix bug with resolving STRUCT/UNION into corresponding FWD

When checking available canonical candidates for struct/union algorithm
utilizes btf_dedup_is_equiv to determine if candidate is suitable. This
check is not enough when candidate is corresponding FWD for that
struct/union, because according to equivalence logic they are
equivalent. When it so happens that FWD and STRUCT/UNION end in hashing
to the same bucket, it's possible to create remapping loop from FWD to
STRUCT and STRUCT to same FWD, which will cause btf_dedup() to loop
forever.

This patch fixes the issue by additionally checking that type and
canonical candidate are strictly equal (utilizing btf_equal_struct).

Fixes: d5caef5b ("btf: add BTF types deduplication algorithm")
Reported-by: default avatarArnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Acked-by: default avatarSong Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Acked-by: default avatarYonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
parent 51edf5f6
...@@ -1663,7 +1663,7 @@ static __u32 btf_hash_struct(struct btf_type *t) ...@@ -1663,7 +1663,7 @@ static __u32 btf_hash_struct(struct btf_type *t)
* IDs. This check is performed during type graph equivalence check and * IDs. This check is performed during type graph equivalence check and
* referenced types equivalence is checked separately. * referenced types equivalence is checked separately.
*/ */
static bool btf_equal_struct(struct btf_type *t1, struct btf_type *t2) static bool btf_shallow_equal_struct(struct btf_type *t1, struct btf_type *t2)
{ {
struct btf_member *m1, *m2; struct btf_member *m1, *m2;
__u16 vlen; __u16 vlen;
...@@ -2124,7 +2124,7 @@ static int btf_dedup_is_equiv(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 cand_id, ...@@ -2124,7 +2124,7 @@ static int btf_dedup_is_equiv(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 cand_id,
struct btf_member *cand_m, *canon_m; struct btf_member *cand_m, *canon_m;
__u16 vlen; __u16 vlen;
if (!btf_equal_struct(cand_type, canon_type)) if (!btf_shallow_equal_struct(cand_type, canon_type))
return 0; return 0;
vlen = BTF_INFO_VLEN(cand_type->info); vlen = BTF_INFO_VLEN(cand_type->info);
cand_m = (struct btf_member *)(cand_type + 1); cand_m = (struct btf_member *)(cand_type + 1);
...@@ -2265,7 +2265,7 @@ static void btf_dedup_merge_hypot_map(struct btf_dedup *d) ...@@ -2265,7 +2265,7 @@ static void btf_dedup_merge_hypot_map(struct btf_dedup *d)
static int btf_dedup_struct_type(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 type_id) static int btf_dedup_struct_type(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 type_id)
{ {
struct btf_dedup_node *cand_node; struct btf_dedup_node *cand_node;
struct btf_type *t; struct btf_type *cand_type, *t;
/* if we don't find equivalent type, then we are canonical */ /* if we don't find equivalent type, then we are canonical */
__u32 new_id = type_id; __u32 new_id = type_id;
__u16 kind; __u16 kind;
...@@ -2285,6 +2285,20 @@ static int btf_dedup_struct_type(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 type_id) ...@@ -2285,6 +2285,20 @@ static int btf_dedup_struct_type(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 type_id)
for_each_dedup_cand(d, h, cand_node) { for_each_dedup_cand(d, h, cand_node) {
int eq; int eq;
/*
* Even though btf_dedup_is_equiv() checks for
* btf_shallow_equal_struct() internally when checking two
* structs (unions) for equivalence, we need to guard here
* from picking matching FWD type as a dedup candidate.
* This can happen due to hash collision. In such case just
* relying on btf_dedup_is_equiv() would lead to potentially
* creating a loop (FWD -> STRUCT and STRUCT -> FWD), because
* FWD and compatible STRUCT/UNION are considered equivalent.
*/
cand_type = d->btf->types[cand_node->type_id];
if (!btf_shallow_equal_struct(t, cand_type))
continue;
btf_dedup_clear_hypot_map(d); btf_dedup_clear_hypot_map(d);
eq = btf_dedup_is_equiv(d, type_id, cand_node->type_id); eq = btf_dedup_is_equiv(d, type_id, cand_node->type_id);
if (eq < 0) if (eq < 0)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment