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: d5caef5b5655 ("btf: add BTF types deduplication algorithm") Reported-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
51edf5f6e0
commit
91097fbee4
@ -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,
|
|||||||
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)
|
|||||||
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)
|
|||||||
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)
|
||||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user