kernel/linux.git/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier, branch v6.12.79

bpf: Fix error message on kfunc arg type mismatch

2024-09-09T22:58:17+00:00

When "arg#%d expected pointer to ctx, but got %s" error is printed, both template parts actually point to the type of the argument, therefore, it will also say "but got PTR", regardless of what was the actual register type. Fix the message to print the register type in the second part of the template, change the existing test to adapt to the new format, and add a new test to test the case when arg is a pointer to context, but reg is a scalar. Fixes: 00b85860feb8 ("bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling") Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240909133909.1315460-1-maxim@isovalent.com

selftests/bpf: fix some typos in selftests

2024-09-05T20:07:47+00:00

Hi, fix some spelling errors in selftest, the details are as follows: -in the codes: test_bpf_sk_stoarge_map_iter_fd(void) ->test_bpf_sk_storage_map_iter_fd(void) load BTF from btf_data.o->load BTF from btf_data.bpf.o -in the code comments: preample->preamble multi-contollers->multi-controllers errono->errno unsighed/unsinged->unsigned egree->egress shoud->should regsiter->register assummed->assumed conditiona->conditional rougly->roughly timetamp->timestamp ingores->ignores null-termainted->null-terminated slepable->sleepable implemenation->implementation veriables->variables timetamps->timestamps substitue a costant->substitute a constant secton->section unreferened->unreferenced verifer->verifier libppf->libbpf ... Signed-off-by: Lin Yikai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240905110354.3274546-1-yikai.lin@vivo.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Remove mark_precise_scalar_ids()

2024-07-29T19:53:14+00:00

Function mark_precise_scalar_ids() is superseded by bt_sync_linked_regs() and equal scalars tracking in jump history. mark_precise_scalar_ids() propagates precision over registers sharing same ID on parent/child state boundaries, while jump history records allow bt_sync_linked_regs() to propagate same information with instruction level granularity, which is strictly more precise. This commit removes mark_precise_scalar_ids() and updates test cases in progs/verifier_scalar_ids to reflect new verifier behavior. The tests are updated in the following manner: - mark_precise_scalar_ids() propagated precision regardless of presence of conditional jumps, while new jump history based logic only kicks in when conditional jumps are present. Hence test cases are augmented with conditional jumps to still trigger precision propagation. - As equal scalars tracking no longer relies on parent/child state boundaries some test cases are no longer interesting, such test cases are removed, namely: - precision_same_state and precision_cross_state are superseded by linked_regs_bpf_k; - precision_same_state_broken_link and equal_scalars_broken_link are superseded by linked_regs_broken_link. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240718202357.1746514-3-eddyz87@gmail.com

bpf: Track equal scalars history on per-instruction level

2024-07-29T19:53:10+00:00

Use bpf_verifier_state->jmp_history to track which registers were updated by find_equal_scalars() (renamed to collect_linked_regs()) when conditional jump was verified. Use recorded information in backtrack_insn() to propagate precision. E.g. for the following program: while verifying instructions 1: r1 = r0 | 2: if r1 < 8 goto ... | push r0,r1 as linked registers in jmp_history 3: if r0 > 16 goto ... | push r0,r1 as linked registers in jmp_history 4: r2 = r10 | 5: r2 += r0 v mark_chain_precision(r0) while doing mark_chain_precision(r0) 5: r2 += r0 | mark r0 precise 4: r2 = r10 | 3: if r0 > 16 goto ... | mark r0,r1 as precise 2: if r1 < 8 goto ... | mark r0,r1 as precise 1: r1 = r0 v Technically, do this as follows: - Use 10 bits to identify each register that gains range because of sync_linked_regs(): - 3 bits for frame number; - 6 bits for register or stack slot number; - 1 bit to indicate if register is spilled. - Use u64 as a vector of 6 such records + 4 bits for vector length. - Augment struct bpf_jmp_history_entry with a field 'linked_regs' representing such vector. - When doing check_cond_jmp_op() remember up to 6 registers that gain range because of sync_linked_regs() in such a vector. - Don't propagate range information and reset IDs for registers that don't fit in 6-value vector. - Push a pair {instruction index, linked registers vector} to bpf_verifier_state->jmp_history. - When doing backtrack_insn() check if any of recorded linked registers is currently marked precise, if so mark all linked registers as precise. This also requires fixes for two test_verifier tests: - precise: test 1 - precise: test 2 Both tests contain the following instruction sequence: 19: (bf) r2 = r9 ; R2=scalar(id=3) R9=scalar(id=3) 20: (a5) if r2 < 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2=scalar(id=3,umin=8) 21: (95) exit 22: (07) r2 += 1 ; R2_w=scalar(id=3+1,...) 23: (bf) r1 = r10 ; R1_w=fp0 R10=fp0 24: (07) r1 += -8 ; R1_w=fp-8 25: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=0 26: (85) call bpf_probe_read_kernel#113 The call to bpf_probe_read_kernel() at (26) forces r2 to be precise. Previously, this forced all registers with same id to become precise immediately when mark_chain_precision() is called. After this change, the precision is propagated to registers sharing same id only when 'if' instruction is backtracked. Hence verification log for both tests is changed: regs=r2,r9 -> regs=r2 for instructions 25..20. Fixes: 904e6ddf4133 ("bpf: Use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision()") Reported-by: Hao Sun Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240718202357.1746514-2-eddyz87@gmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZ0xidVCqB47XnkXcNhkPWF6_nTV7yt+_Lf0kcFEut2Mg@mail.gmail.com/

selftests/bpf: Test for null-pointer-deref bugfix in resolve_prog_type()

2024-07-12T20:14:21+00:00

This test verifies that resolve_prog_type() works as expected when `attach_prog_fd` is not passed in. `prog->aux->dst_prog` in resolve_prog_type() is assigned by `attach_prog_fd`, and would be NULL if `attach_prog_fd` is not provided. Loading EXT prog with bpf_dynptr_from_skb() kfunc call in this way will lead to null-pointer-deref. Verify that the null-pointer-deref bug in resolve_prog_type() is fixed. Signed-off-by: Tengda Wu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240711145819.254178-3-wutengda@huaweicloud.com

bpf: relax zero fixed offset constraint on KF_TRUSTED_ARGS/KF_RCU

2024-07-10T02:11:47+00:00

Currently, BPF kfuncs which accept trusted pointer arguments i.e. those flagged as KF_TRUSTED_ARGS, KF_RCU, or KF_RELEASE, all require an original/unmodified trusted pointer argument to be supplied to them. By original/unmodified, it means that the backing register holding the trusted pointer argument that is to be supplied to the BPF kfunc must have its fixed offset set to zero, or else the BPF verifier will outright reject the BPF program load. However, this zero fixed offset constraint that is currently enforced by the BPF verifier onto BPF kfuncs specifically flagged to accept KF_TRUSTED_ARGS or KF_RCU trusted pointer arguments is rather unnecessary, and can limit their usability in practice. Specifically, it completely eliminates the possibility of constructing a derived trusted pointer from an original trusted pointer. To put it simply, a derived pointer is a pointer which points to one of the nested member fields of the object being pointed to by the original trusted pointer. This patch relaxes the zero fixed offset constraint that is enforced upon BPF kfuncs which specifically accept KF_TRUSTED_ARGS, or KF_RCU arguments. Although, the zero fixed offset constraint technically also applies to BPF kfuncs accepting KF_RELEASE arguments, relaxing this constraint for such BPF kfuncs has subtle and unwanted side-effects. This was discovered by experimenting a little further with an initial version of this patch series [0]. The primary issue with relaxing the zero fixed offset constraint on BPF kfuncs accepting KF_RELEASE arguments is that it'd would open up the opportunity for BPF programs to supply both trusted pointers and derived trusted pointers to them. For KF_RELEASE BPF kfuncs specifically, this could be problematic as resources associated with the backing pointer could be released by the backing BPF kfunc and cause instabilities for the rest of the kernel. With this new fixed offset semantic in-place for BPF kfuncs accepting KF_TRUSTED_ARGS and KF_RCU arguments, we now have more flexibility when it comes to the BPF kfuncs that we're able to introduce moving forward. Early discussions covering the possibility of relaxing the zero fixed offset constraint can be found using the link below. This will provide more context on where all this has stemmed from [1]. Notably, pre-existing tests have been updated such that they provide coverage for the updated zero fixed offset functionality. Specifically, the nested offset test was converted from a negative to positive test as it was already designed to assert zero fixed offset semantics of a KF_TRUSTED_ARGS BPF kfunc. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZnA9ndnXKtHOuYMe@google.com/ [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZhkbrM55MKQ0KeIV@google.com/ Signed-off-by: Matt Bobrowski Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240709210939.1544011-1-mattbobrowski@google.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Track delta between "linked" registers.

2024-06-14T19:52:39+00:00

Compilers can generate the code r1 = r2 r1 += 0x1 if r2 < 1000 goto ... use knowledge of r2 range in subsequent r1 operations So remember constant delta between r2 and r1 and update r1 after 'if' condition. Unfortunately LLVM still uses this pattern for loops with 'can_loop' construct: for (i = 0; i < 1000 && can_loop; i++) The "undo" pass was introduced in LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D121937 to prevent this optimization, but it cannot cover all cases. Instead of fighting middle end optimizer in BPF backend teach the verifier about this pattern. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240613013815.953-3-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com

selftests/bpf: Skip callback tests if jit is disabled in test_verifier

2024-01-24T04:27:41+00:00

If CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set and bpf_jit_enable is 0, there exist 6 failed tests. [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled [root@linux bpf]# ./test_verifier | grep FAIL #106/p inline simple bpf_loop call FAIL #107/p don't inline bpf_loop call, flags non-zero FAIL #108/p don't inline bpf_loop call, callback non-constant FAIL #109/p bpf_loop_inline and a dead func FAIL #110/p bpf_loop_inline stack locations for loop vars FAIL #111/p inline bpf_loop call in a big program FAIL Summary: 768 PASSED, 15 SKIPPED, 6 FAILED The test log shows that callbacks are not allowed in non-JITed programs, interpreter doesn't support them yet, thus these tests should be skipped if jit is disabled. Add an explicit flag F_NEEDS_JIT_ENABLED to those tests to mark that they require JIT enabled in bpf_loop_inline.c, check the flag and jit_disabled at the beginning of do_test_single() to handle this case. With this patch: [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable [root@linux bpf]# echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/unprivileged_bpf_disabled [root@linux bpf]# ./test_verifier | grep FAIL Summary: 768 PASSED, 21 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240123090351.2207-3-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn

bpf: Assign ID to scalars on spill

2024-01-23T22:40:23+00:00

Currently, when a scalar bounded register is spilled to the stack, its ID is preserved, but only if was already assigned, i.e. if this register was MOVed before. Assign an ID on spill if none is set, so that equal scalars could be tracked if a register is spilled to the stack and filled into another register. One test is adjusted to reflect the change in register IDs. Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240108205209.838365-9-maxtram95@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix accesses to uninit stack slots

2023-12-08T22:19:00+00:00

Privileged programs are supposed to be able to read uninitialized stack memory (ever since 6715df8d5) but, before this patch, these accesses were permitted inconsistently. In particular, accesses were permitted above state->allocated_stack, but not below it. In other words, if the stack was already "large enough", the access was permitted, but otherwise the access was rejected instead of being allowed to "grow the stack". This undesired rejection was happening in two places: - in check_stack_slot_within_bounds() - in check_stack_range_initialized() This patch arranges for these accesses to be permitted. A bunch of tests that were relying on the old rejection had to change; all of them were changed to add also run unprivileged, in which case the old behavior persists. One tests couldn't be updated - global_func16 - because it can't run unprivileged for other reasons. This patch also fixes the tracking of the stack size for variable-offset reads. This second fix is bundled in the same commit as the first one because they're inter-related. Before this patch, writes to the stack using registers containing a variable offset (as opposed to registers with fixed, known values) were not properly contributing to the function's needed stack size. As a result, it was possible for a program to verify, but then to attempt to read out-of-bounds data at runtime because a too small stack had been allocated for it. Each function tracks the size of the stack it needs in bpf_subprog_info.stack_depth, which is maintained by update_stack_depth(). For regular memory accesses, check_mem_access() was calling update_state_depth() but it was passing in only the fixed part of the offset register, ignoring the variable offset. This was incorrect; the minimum possible value of that register should be used instead. This tracking is now fixed by centralizing the tracking of stack size in grow_stack_state(), and by lifting the calls to grow_stack_state() to check_stack_access_within_bounds() as suggested by Andrii. The code is now simpler and more convincingly tracks the correct maximum stack size. check_stack_range_initialized() can now rely on enough stack having been allocated for the access; this helps with the fix for the first issue. A few tests were changed to also check the stack depth computation. The one that fails without this patch is verifier_var_off:stack_write_priv_vs_unpriv. Fixes: 01f810ace9ed3 ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access") Reported-by: Hao Sun Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231208032519.260451-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CABWLsev9g8UP_c3a=1qbuZUi20tGoUXoU07FPf-5FLvhOKOY+Q@mail.gmail.com/