| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
This change doesn't seem to have any effect on selftests and production
BPF object files, but we preemptively try to make it more robust.
First, "learn sign from signed bounds" comment is misleading, as we are
learning not just sign, but also values.
Second, we simplify the check for determining whether entire range is
positive or negative similarly to other checks added earlier, using
appropriate u32/u64 cast and single comparisons. As explain in comments
in __reg64_deduce_bounds(), the checks are equivalent.
Last but not least, smin/smax and s32_min/s32_max reassignment based on
min/max of both umin/umax and smin/smax (and 32-bit equivalents) is hard
to explain and justify. We are updating unsigned bounds from signed
bounds, why would we update signed bounds at the same time? This might
be correct, but it's far from obvious why and the code or comments don't
try to justify this. Given we've added a separate deduction of signed
bounds from unsigned bounds earlier, this seems at least redundant, if
not just wrong.
In short, we remove doubtful pieces, and streamline the rest to follow
the logic and approach of the rest of reg_bounds_sync() checks.
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Equivalent checks were recently added in more succinct and, arguably,
safer form in:
- f188765f23a5 ("bpf: derive smin32/smax32 from umin32/umax32 bounds");
- 2e74aef782d3 ("bpf: derive smin/smax from umin/max bounds").
The checks we are removing in this patch set do similar checks to detect
if entire u32/u64 range has signed bit set or not set, but does it with
two separate checks.
Further, we forcefully overwrite either smin or smax (and 32-bit equvalents)
without applying normal min/max intersection logic. It's not clear why
that would be correct in all cases and seems to work by accident. This
logic is also "gated" by previous signed -> unsigned derivation, which
returns early.
All this is quite confusing and seems error-prone, while we already have
at least equivalent checks happening earlier. So remove this duplicate
and error-prone logic to simplify things a bit.
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-6-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Add simple sanity checks that validate well-formed ranges (min <= max)
across u64, s64, u32, and s32 ranges. Also for cases when the value is
constant (either 64-bit or 32-bit), we validate that ranges and tnums
are in agreement.
These bounds checks are performed at the end of BPF_ALU/BPF_ALU64
operations, on conditional jumps, and for LDX instructions (where subreg
zero/sign extension is probably the most important to check). This
covers most of the interesting cases.
Also, we validate the sanity of the return register when manually
adjusting it for some special helpers.
By default, sanity violation will trigger a warning in verifier log and
resetting register bounds to "unbounded" ones. But to aid development
and debugging, BPF_F_TEST_SANITY_STRICT flag is added, which will
trigger hard failure of verification with -EFAULT on register bounds
violations. This allows selftests to catch such issues. veristat will
also gain a CLI option to enable this behavior.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-5-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Use 32-bit subranges to prune some 64-bit BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE conditions
that otherwise would be "inconclusive" (i.e., is_branch_taken() would
return -1). This can happen, for example, when registers are initialized
as 64-bit u64/s64, then compared for inequality as 32-bit subregisters,
and then followed by 64-bit equality/inequality check. That 32-bit
inequality can establish some pattern for lower 32 bits of a register
(e.g., s< 0 condition determines whether the bit #31 is zero or not),
while overall 64-bit value could be anything (according to a value range
representation).
This is not a fancy quirky special case, but actually a handling that's
necessary to prevent correctness issue with BPF verifier's range
tracking: set_range_min_max() assumes that register ranges are
non-overlapping, and if that condition is not guaranteed by
is_branch_taken() we can end up with invalid ranges, where min > max.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsY2q1_fUohD7hRmKGqv1MV=eP2f6XK8kjkYNw7BaiF8iQ@mail.gmail.com/
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Generalize is_branch_taken logic for SCALAR_VALUE register to handle
cases when both registers are not constants. Previously supported
<range> vs <scalar> cases are a natural subset of more generic <range>
vs <range> set of cases.
Generalized logic relies on straightforward segment intersection checks.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-3-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Generalize bounds adjustment logic of reg_set_min_max() to handle not
just register vs constant case, but in general any register vs any
register cases. For most of the operations it's trivial extension based
on range vs range comparison logic, we just need to properly pick
min/max of a range to compare against min/max of the other range.
For BPF_JSET we keep the original capabilities, just make sure JSET is
integrated in the common framework. This is manifested in the
internal-only BPF_JSET + BPF_X "opcode" to allow for simpler and more
uniform rev_opcode() handling. See the code for details. This allows to
reuse the same code exactly both for TRUE and FALSE branches without
explicitly handling both conditions with custom code.
Note also that now we don't need a special handling of BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE
case none of the registers are constants. This is now just a normal
generic case handled by reg_set_min_max().
To make tnum handling cleaner, tnum_with_subreg() helper is added, as
that's a common operator when dealing with 32-bit subregister bounds.
This keeps the overall logic much less noisy when it comes to tnums.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-2-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Kirill Shutemov reported significant percpu memory consumption increase after
booting in 288-cpu VM ([1]) due to commit 41a5db8d8161 ("bpf: Add support for
non-fix-size percpu mem allocation"). The percpu memory consumption is
increased from 111MB to 969MB. The number is from /proc/meminfo.
I tried to reproduce the issue with my local VM which at most supports upto
255 cpus. With 252 cpus, without the above commit, the percpu memory
consumption immediately after boot is 57MB while with the above commit the
percpu memory consumption is 231MB.
This is not good since so far percpu memory from bpf memory allocator is not
widely used yet. Let us change pre-allocation in init stage to on-demand
allocation when verifier detects there is a need of percpu memory for bpf
program. With this change, percpu memory consumption after boot can be reduced
signicantly.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231109154934.4saimljtqx625l3v@box.shutemov.name/
Fixes: 41a5db8d8161 ("bpf: Add support for non-fix-size percpu mem allocation")
Reported-and-tested-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231111013928.948838-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
When BPF program is verified in privileged mode, BPF verifier allows
bounded loops. This means that from CFG point of view there are
definitely some back-edges. Original commit adjusted check_cfg() logic
to not detect back-edges in control flow graph if they are resulting
from conditional jumps, which the idea that subsequent full BPF
verification process will determine whether such loops are bounded or
not, and either accept or reject the BPF program. At least that's my
reading of the intent.
Unfortunately, the implementation of this idea doesn't work correctly in
all possible situations. Conditional jump might not result in immediate
back-edge, but just a few unconditional instructions later we can arrive
at back-edge. In such situations check_cfg() would reject BPF program
even in privileged mode, despite it might be bounded loop. Next patch
adds one simple program demonstrating such scenario.
To keep things simple, instead of trying to detect back edges in
privileged mode, just assume every back edge is valid and let subsequent
BPF verification prove or reject bounded loops.
Note a few test changes. For unknown reason, we have a few tests that
are specified to detect a back-edge in a privileged mode, but looking at
their code it seems like the right outcome is passing check_cfg() and
letting subsequent verification to make a decision about bounded or not
bounded looping.
Bounded recursion case is also interesting. The example should pass, as
recursion is limited to just a few levels and so we never reach maximum
number of nested frames and never exhaust maximum stack depth. But the
way that max stack depth logic works today it falsely detects this as
exceeding max nested frame count. This patch series doesn't attempt to
fix this orthogonal problem, so we just adjust expected verifier failure.
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Fixes: 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110061412.2995786-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Fix an edge case in __mark_chain_precision() which prematurely stops
backtracking instructions in a state if it happens that state's first
and last instruction indexes are the same. This situations doesn't
necessarily mean that there were no instructions simulated in a state,
but rather that we starting from the instruction, jumped around a bit,
and then ended up at the same instruction before checkpointing or
marking precision.
To distinguish between these two possible situations, we need to consult
jump history. If it's empty or contain a single record "bridging" parent
state and first instruction of processed state, then we indeed
backtracked all instructions in this state. But if history is not empty,
we are definitely not done yet.
Move this logic inside get_prev_insn_idx() to contain it more nicely.
Use -ENOENT return code to denote "we are out of instructions"
situation.
This bug was exposed by verifier_loop1.c's bounded_recursion subtest, once
the next fix in this patch set is applied.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110002638.4168352-3-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
ldimm64 instructions are 16-byte long, and so have to be handled
appropriately in check_cfg(), just like the rest of BPF verifier does.
This has implications in three places:
- when determining next instruction for non-jump instructions;
- when determining next instruction for callback address ldimm64
instructions (in visit_func_call_insn());
- when checking for unreachable instructions, where second half of
ldimm64 is expected to be unreachable;
We take this also as an opportunity to report jump into the middle of
ldimm64. And adjust few test_verifier tests accordingly.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Fixes: 475fb78fbf48 ("bpf: verifier (add branch/goto checks)")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110002638.4168352-2-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
This patch enables the following pattern:
/* mapval contains a __kptr pointing to refcounted local kptr */
mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&map, &idx);
if (!mapval || !mapval->some_kptr) { /* omitted */ }
p = bpf_refcount_acquire(&mapval->some_kptr);
Currently this doesn't work because bpf_refcount_acquire expects an
owning or non-owning ref. The verifier defines non-owning ref as a type:
PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | NON_OWN_REF
while mapval->some_kptr is PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_UNTRUSTED. It's possible
to do the refcount_acquire by first bpf_kptr_xchg'ing mapval->some_kptr
into a temp kptr, refcount_acquiring that, and xchg'ing back into
mapval, but this is unwieldy and shouldn't be necessary.
This patch modifies btf_ld_kptr_type such that user-allocated types are
marked MEM_ALLOC and if those types have a bpf_{rb,list}_node they're
marked NON_OWN_REF as well. Additionally, due to changes to
bpf_obj_drop_impl earlier in this series, rcu_protected_object now
returns true for all user-allocated types, resulting in
mapval->some_kptr being marked MEM_RCU.
After this patch's changes, mapval->some_kptr is now:
PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | NON_OWN_REF | MEM_RCU
which results in it passing the non-owning ref test, and the motivating
example passing verification.
Future work will likely get rid of special non-owning ref lifetime logic
in the verifier, at which point we'll be able to delete the NON_OWN_REF
flag entirely.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231107085639.3016113-6-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
The addition of is_reg_const() in commit 171de12646d2 ("bpf: generalize
is_branch_taken to handle all conditional jumps in one place") has made the
register_is_const() redundant. Give the former has more feature, plus the
fact the latter is only used in one place, replace register_is_const() with
is_reg_const(), and remove the definition of register_is_const.
This requires moving the definition of is_reg_const() further up. And since
the comment of reg_const_value() reference is_reg_const(), move it up as
well.
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108140043.12282-1-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Similar to ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR for BPF helpers, KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR
specifies kfunc args that point to const strings. Annotation "__str" is
used to specify kfunc arg of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR. Also, add
documentation for the "__str" annotation.
bpf_get_file_xattr() will be the first kfunc that uses this type.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231107045725.2278852-4-song@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR is used to specify constant string args for BPF
helpers. The logic that verifies a reg is ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR is
implemented in check_func_arg().
As we introduce kfuncs with constant string args, it is necessary to
do the same check for kfuncs (in check_kfunc_args). Factor out the logic
for ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR to a new check_reg_const_str() so that it can be
reused.
check_func_arg() ensures check_reg_const_str() is only called with reg of
type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. Add a redundent type check in check_reg_const_str()
to avoid misuse in the future. Other than this redundent check, there is
no change in behavior.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231107045725.2278852-3-song@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Change reg_set_min_max() to take FALSE/TRUE sets of two registers each,
instead of assuming that we are always comparing to a constant. For now
we still assume that right-hand side registers are constants (and make
sure that's the case by swapping src/dst regs, if necessary), but
subsequent patches will remove this limitation.
reg_set_min_max() is now called unconditionally for any register
comparison, so that might include pointer vs pointer. This makes it
consistent with is_branch_taken() generality. But we currently only
support adjustments based on SCALAR vs SCALAR comparisons, so
reg_set_min_max() has to guard itself againts pointers.
Taking two by two registers allows to further unify and simplify
check_cond_jmp_op() logic. We utilize fake register for BPF_K
conditional jump case, just like with is_branch_taken() part.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-18-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Similarly to is_branch_taken()-related refactorings, start preparing
reg_set_min_max() to handle more generic case of two non-const
registers. Start with renaming arguments to accommodate later addition
of second register as an input argument.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-17-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Combine 32-bit and 64-bit is_branch_taken logic for SCALAR_VALUE
registers. It makes it easier to see parallels between two domains
(32-bit and 64-bit), and makes subsequent refactoring more
straightforward.
No functional changes.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-16-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Make is_branch_taken() a single entry point for branch pruning decision
making, handling both pointer vs pointer, pointer vs scalar, and scalar
vs scalar cases in one place. This also nicely cleans up check_cond_jmp_op().
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-15-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Move is_branch_taken() slightly down. In subsequent patched we'll need
both flip_opcode() and is_pkt_ptr_branch_taken() for is_branch_taken(),
but instead of sprinkling forward declarations around, it makes more
sense to move is_branch_taken() lower below is_pkt_ptr_branch_taken(),
and also keep it closer to very tightly related reg_set_min_max(), as
they are two critical parts of the same SCALAR range tracking logic.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-14-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
While still assuming that second register is a constant, generalize
is_branch_taken-related code to accept two registers instead of register
plus explicit constant value. This also, as a side effect, allows to
simplify check_cond_jmp_op() by unifying BPF_K case with BPF_X case, for
which we use a fake register to represent BPF_K's imm constant as
a register.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-13-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Just taking mundane refactoring bits out into a separate patch. No
functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-12-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
When performing 32-bit conditional operation operating on lower 32 bits
of a full 64-bit register, register full value isn't changed. We just
potentially gain new knowledge about that register's lower 32 bits.
Unfortunately, __reg_combine_{32,64}_into_{64,32} logic that
reg_set_min_max() performs as a last step, can lose information in some
cases due to __mark_reg64_unbounded() and __reg_assign_32_into_64().
That's bad and completely unnecessary. Especially __reg_assign_32_into_64()
looks completely out of place here, because we are not performing
zero-extending subregister assignment during conditional jump.
So this patch replaced __reg_combine_* with just a normal
reg_bounds_sync() which will do a proper job of deriving u64/s64 bounds
from u32/s32, and vice versa (among all other combinations).
__reg_combine_64_into_32() is also used in one more place,
coerce_reg_to_size(), while handling 1- and 2-byte register loads.
Looking into this, it seems like besides marking subregister as
unbounded before performing reg_bounds_sync(), we were also performing
deduction of smin32/smax32 and umin32/umax32 bounds from respective
smin/smax and umin/umax bounds. It's now redundant as reg_bounds_sync()
performs all the same logic more generically (e.g., without unnecessary
assumption that upper 32 bits of full register should be zero).
Long story short, we remove __reg_combine_64_into_32() completely, and
coerce_reg_to_size() now only does resetting subreg to unbounded and then
performing reg_bounds_sync() to recover as much information as possible
from 64-bit umin/umax and smin/smax bounds, set explicitly in
coerce_reg_to_size() earlier.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-10-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
There are cases (caught by subsequent reg_bounds tests in selftests/bpf)
where performing one round of __reg_deduce_bounds() doesn't propagate
all the information from, say, s32 to u32 bounds and than from newly
learned u32 bounds back to u64 and s64. So perform __reg_deduce_bounds()
twice to make sure such derivations are propagated fully after
reg_bounds_sync().
One such example is test `(s64)[0xffffffff00000001; 0] (u64)<
0xffffffff00000000` from selftest patch from this patch set. It demonstrates an
intricate dance of u64 -> s64 -> u64 -> u32 bounds adjustments, which requires
two rounds of __reg_deduce_bounds(). Here are corresponding refinement log from
selftest, showing evolution of knowledge.
REFINING (FALSE R1) (u64)SRC=[0xffffffff00000000; U64_MAX] (u64)DST_OLD=[0; U64_MAX] (u64)DST_NEW=[0xffffffff00000000; U64_MAX]
REFINING (FALSE R1) (u64)SRC=[0xffffffff00000000; U64_MAX] (s64)DST_OLD=[0xffffffff00000001; 0] (s64)DST_NEW=[0xffffffff00000001; -1]
REFINING (FALSE R1) (s64)SRC=[0xffffffff00000001; -1] (u64)DST_OLD=[0xffffffff00000000; U64_MAX] (u64)DST_NEW=[0xffffffff00000001; U64_MAX]
REFINING (FALSE R1) (u64)SRC=[0xffffffff00000001; U64_MAX] (u32)DST_OLD=[0; U32_MAX] (u32)DST_NEW=[1; U32_MAX]
R1 initially has smin/smax set to [0xffffffff00000001; -1], while umin/umax is
unknown. After (u64)< comparison, in FALSE branch we gain knowledge that
umin/umax is [0xffffffff00000000; U64_MAX]. That causes smin/smax to learn that
zero can't happen and upper bound is -1. Then smin/smax is adjusted from
umin/umax improving lower bound from 0xffffffff00000000 to 0xffffffff00000001.
And then eventually umin32/umax32 bounds are drived from umin/umax and become
[1; U32_MAX].
Selftest in the last patch is actually implementing a multi-round fixed-point
convergence logic, but so far all the tests are handled by two rounds of
reg_bounds_sync() on the verifier state, so we keep it simple for now.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-9-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Add a few interesting cases in which we can tighten 64-bit bounds based
on newly learnt information about 32-bit bounds. E.g., when full u64/s64
registers are used in BPF program, and then eventually compared as
u32/s32. The latter comparison doesn't change the value of full
register, but it does impose new restrictions on possible lower 32 bits
of such full registers. And we can use that to derive additional full
register bounds information.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-8-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Add a special case where we can derive valid s32 bounds from umin/umax
or smin/smax by stitching together negative s32 subrange and
non-negative s32 subrange. That requires upper 32 bits to form a [N, N+1]
range in u32 domain (taking into account wrap around, so 0xffffffff
to 0x00000000 is a valid [N, N+1] range in this sense). See code comment
for concrete examples.
Eduard Zingerman also provided an alternative explanation ([0]) for more
mathematically inclined readers:
Suppose:
. there are numbers a, b, c
. 2**31 <= b < 2**32
. 0 <= c < 2**31
. umin = 2**32 * a + b
. umax = 2**32 * (a + 1) + c
The number of values in the range represented by [umin; umax] is:
. N = umax - umin + 1 = 2**32 + c - b + 1
. min(N) = 2**32 + 0 - (2**32-1) + 1 = 2, with b = 2**32-1, c = 0
. max(N) = 2**32 + (2**31 - 1) - 2**31 + 1 = 2**32, with b = 2**31, c = 2**31-1
Hence [(s32)b; (s32)c] forms a valid range.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d7af631802f0cfae20df77fe70068702d24bbd31.camel@gmail.com/
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Comments in code try to explain the idea behind why this is correct.
Please check the code and comments.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-6-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
All the logic that applies to u64 vs s64, equally applies for u32 vs s32
relationships (just taken in a smaller 32-bit numeric space). So do the
same deduction of smin32/smax32 from umin32/umax32, if we can.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-5-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Add smin/smax derivation from appropriate umin/umax values. Previously the
logic was surprisingly asymmetric, trying to derive umin/umax from smin/smax
(if possible), but not trying to do the same in the other direction. A simple
addition to __reg64_deduce_bounds() fixes this.
Added also generic comment about u64/s64 ranges and their relationship.
Hopefully that helps readers to understand all the bounds deductions
a bit better.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102033759.2541186-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
BPF_END and BPF_NEG has a different specification for the source bit in
the opcode compared to other ALU/ALU64 instructions, and is either
reserved or use to specify the byte swap endianness. In both cases the
source bit does not encode source operand location, and src_reg is a
reserved field.
backtrack_insn() currently does not differentiate BPF_END and BPF_NEG
from other ALU/ALU64 instructions, which leads to r0 being incorrectly
marked as precise when processing BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END
instructions. This commit teaches backtrack_insn() to correctly mark
precision for such case.
While precise tracking of BPF_NEG and other BPF_END instructions are
correct and does not need fixing, this commit opt to process all BPF_NEG
and BPF_END instructions within the same if-clause to better align with
current convention used in the verifier (e.g. check_alu_op).
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <mmahmoud@redhat.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87jzrrwptf.fsf@toke.dk
Tested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102053913.12004-2-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
The newly added open-coded css_task iter would try to hold the global
css_set_lock in bpf_iter_css_task_new, so the bpf side has to be careful in
where it allows to use this iter. The mainly concern is dead locking on
css_set_lock. check_css_task_iter_allowlist() in verifier enforced css_task
can only be used in bpf_lsm hooks and sleepable bpf_iter.
This patch relax the allowlist for css_task iter. Any lsm and any iter
(even non-sleepable) and any sleepable are safe since they would not hold
the css_set_lock before entering BPF progs context.
This patch also fixes the misused BPF_TRACE_ITER in
check_css_task_iter_allowlist which compared bpf_prog_type with
bpf_attach_type.
Fixes: 9c66dc94b62ae ("bpf: Introduce css_task open-coded iterator kfuncs")
Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231031050438.93297-2-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
In check_stack_write_fixed_off(), imm value is cast to u32 before being
spilled to the stack. Therefore, the sign information is lost, and the
range information is incorrect when load from the stack again.
For the following prog:
0: r2 = r10
1: *(u64*)(r2 -40) = -44
2: r0 = *(u64*)(r2 - 40)
3: if r0 s<= 0xa goto +2
4: r0 = 1
5: exit
6: r0 = 0
7: exit
The verifier gives:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
0: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0
1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 -40) = -44 ; R2_w=fp0 fp-40_w=4294967252
2: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 -40) ; R0_w=4294967252 R2_w=fp0
fp-40_w=4294967252
3: (c5) if r0 s< 0xa goto pc+2
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 3 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 -40)
3: R0_w=4294967252
4: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=1
5: (95) exit
verification time 7971 usec
stack depth 40
processed 6 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0
peak_states 0 mark_read 0
So remove the incorrect cast, since imm field is declared as s32, and
__mark_reg_known() takes u64, so imm would be correctly sign extended
by compiler.
Fixes: ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231101-fix-check-stack-write-v3-1-f05c2b1473d5@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Our MPTCP CI complained [1] -- and KBuild too -- that it was no longer
possible to build the kernel without CONFIG_CGROUPS:
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: In function 'bpf_iter_css_task_new':
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:919:14: error: 'CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS' undeclared (first use in this function)
919 | case CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS | CSS_TASK_ITER_THREADED:
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:919:14: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:919:36: error: 'CSS_TASK_ITER_THREADED' undeclared (first use in this function)
919 | case CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS | CSS_TASK_ITER_THREADED:
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:927:60: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to incomplete type 'struct css_task_iter'
927 | kit->css_it = bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_ma, sizeof(struct css_task_iter));
| ^~~~~~
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:930:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'css_task_iter_start'; did you mean 'task_seq_start'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
930 | css_task_iter_start(css, flags, kit->css_it);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| task_seq_start
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: In function 'bpf_iter_css_task_next':
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:940:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'css_task_iter_next'; did you mean 'class_dev_iter_next'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
940 | return css_task_iter_next(kit->css_it);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| class_dev_iter_next
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:940:16: error: returning 'int' from a function with return type 'struct task_struct *' makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Werror=int-conversion]
940 | return css_task_iter_next(kit->css_it);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: In function 'bpf_iter_css_task_destroy':
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c:949:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'css_task_iter_end' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
949 | css_task_iter_end(kit->css_it);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This patch simply surrounds with a #ifdef the new code requiring CGroups
support. It seems enough for the compiler and this is similar to
bpf_iter_css_{new,next,destroy}() functions where no other #ifdef have
been added in kernel/bpf/helpers.c and in the selftests.
Fixes: 9c66dc94b62a ("bpf: Introduce css_task open-coded iterator kfuncs")
Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/6665206927
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310260528.aHWgVFqq-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
[ added missing ifdefs for BTF_ID cgroup definitions ]
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231101181601.1493271-1-jolsa@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
When determining if an if/else branch will always or never be taken, use
signed range knowledge in addition to currently used unsigned range knowledge.
If either signed or unsigned range suggests that condition is always/never
taken, return corresponding branch_taken verdict.
Current use of unsigned range for this seems arbitrary and unnecessarily
incomplete. It is possible for *signed* operations to be performed on
register, which could "invalidate" unsigned range for that register. In such
case branch_taken will be artificially useless, even if we can still tell
that some constant is outside of register value range based on its signed
bounds.
veristat-based validation shows zero differences across selftests, Cilium,
and Meta-internal BPF object files.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231022205743.72352-2-andrii@kernel.org
|
|
Additional logging in is_state_visited(): if infinite loop is detected
print full verifier state for both current and equivalent states.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-8-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
It turns out that .branches > 0 in is_state_visited() is not a
sufficient condition to identify if two verifier states form a loop
when iterators convergence is computed. This commit adds logic to
distinguish situations like below:
(I) initial (II) initial
| |
V V
.---------> hdr ..
| | |
| V V
| .------... .------..
| | | | |
| V V V V
| ... ... .-> hdr ..
| | | | | |
| V V | V V
| succ <- cur | succ <- cur
| | | |
| V | V
| ... | ...
| | | |
'----' '----'
For both (I) and (II) successor 'succ' of the current state 'cur' was
previously explored and has branches count at 0. However, loop entry
'hdr' corresponding to 'succ' might be a part of current DFS path.
If that is the case 'succ' and 'cur' are members of the same loop
and have to be compared exactly.
Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-6-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Convergence for open coded iterators is computed in is_state_visited()
by examining states with branches count > 1 and using states_equal().
states_equal() computes sub-state relation using read and precision marks.
Read and precision marks are propagated from children states,
thus are not guaranteed to be complete inside a loop when branches
count > 1. This could be demonstrated using the following unsafe program:
1. r7 = -16
2. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
3. while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) {
4. if (r6 != 42) {
5. r7 = -32
6. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
7. continue
8. }
9. r0 = r10
10. r0 += r7
11. r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0)
12. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
13. }
Here verifier would first visit path 1-3, create a checkpoint at 3
with r7=-16, continue to 4-7,3 with r7=-32.
Because instructions at 9-12 had not been visitied yet existing
checkpoint at 3 does not have read or precision mark for r7.
Thus states_equal() would return true and verifier would discard
current state, thus unsafe memory access at 11 would not be caught.
This commit fixes this loophole by introducing exact state comparisons
for iterator convergence logic:
- registers are compared using regs_exact() regardless of read or
precision marks;
- stack slots have to have identical type.
Unfortunately, this is too strict even for simple programs like below:
i = 0;
while(iter_next(&it))
i++;
At each iteration step i++ would produce a new distinct state and
eventually instruction processing limit would be reached.
To avoid such behavior speculatively forget (widen) range for
imprecise scalar registers, if those registers were not precise at the
end of the previous iteration and do not match exactly.
This a conservative heuristic that allows to verify wide range of
programs, however it precludes verification of programs that conjure
an imprecise value on the first loop iteration and use it as precise
on the second.
Test case iter_task_vma_for_each() presents one of such cases:
unsigned int seen = 0;
...
bpf_for_each(task_vma, vma, task, 0) {
if (seen >= 1000)
break;
...
seen++;
}
Here clang generates the following code:
<LBB0_4>:
24: r8 = r6 ; stash current value of
... body ... 'seen'
29: r1 = r10
30: r1 += -0x8
31: call bpf_iter_task_vma_next
32: r6 += 0x1 ; seen++;
33: if r0 == 0x0 goto +0x2 <LBB0_6> ; exit on next() == NULL
34: r7 += 0x10
35: if r8 < 0x3e7 goto -0xc <LBB0_4> ; loop on seen < 1000
<LBB0_6>:
... exit ...
Note that counter in r6 is copied to r8 and then incremented,
conditional jump is done using r8. Because of this precision mark for
r6 lags one state behind of precision mark on r8 and widening logic
kicks in.
Adding barrier_var(seen) after conditional is sufficient to force
clang use the same register for both counting and conditional jump.
This issue was discussed in the thread [1] which was started by
Andrew Werner <awerner32@gmail.com> demonstrating a similar bug
in callback functions handling. The callbacks would be addressed
in a followup patch.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/97a90da09404c65c8e810cf83c94ac703705dc0e.camel@gmail.com/
Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-4-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Extract same_callsites() from clean_live_states() as a utility function.
This function would be used by the next patch in the set.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-3-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
Subsequent patches would make use of explored_state() function.
Move it up to avoid adding unnecessary prototype.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-2-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
When using task_iter to iterate all threads of a specific task, we enforce
that the user must pass a valid task pointer to ensure safety. However,
when iterating all threads/process in the system, BPF verifier still
require a valid ptr instead of "nullable" pointer, even though it's
pointless, which is a kind of surprising from usability standpoint. It
would be nice if we could let that kfunc accept a explicit null pointer
when we are using BPF_TASK_ITER_ALL_{PROCS, THREADS} and a valid pointer
when using BPF_TASK_ITER_THREAD.
Given a trival kfunc:
__bpf_kfunc void FN(struct TYPE_A *obj);
BPF Prog would reject a nullptr for obj. The error info is:
"arg#x pointer type xx xx must point to scalar, or struct with scalar"
reported by get_kfunc_ptr_arg_type(). The reg->type is SCALAR_VALUE and
the btf type of ref_t is not scalar or scalar_struct which leads to the
rejection of get_kfunc_ptr_arg_type.
This patch add "__nullable" annotation:
__bpf_kfunc void FN(struct TYPE_A *obj__nullable);
Here __nullable indicates obj can be optional, user can pass a explicit
nullptr or a normal TYPE_A pointer. In get_kfunc_ptr_arg_type(), we will
detect whether the current arg is optional and register is null, If so,
return a new kfunc_ptr_arg_type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_NULL and skip to the next
arg in check_kfunc_args().
Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231018061746.111364-7-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
css_iter and task_iter should be used in rcu section. Specifically, in
sleepable progs explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock() is needed before use these
iters. In normal bpf progs that have implicit rcu_read_lock(), it's OK to
use them directly.
This patch adds a new a KF flag KF_RCU_PROTECTED for bpf_iter_task_new and
bpf_iter_css_new. It means the kfunc should be used in RCU CS. We check
whether we are in rcu cs before we want to invoke this kfunc. If the rcu
protection is guaranteed, we would let st->type = PTR_TO_STACK | MEM_RCU.
Once user do rcu_unlock during the iteration, state MEM_RCU of regs would
be cleared. is_iter_reg_valid_init() will reject if reg->type is UNTRUSTED.
It is worth noting that currently, bpf_rcu_read_unlock does not
clear the state of the STACK_ITER reg, since bpf_for_each_spilled_reg
only considers STACK_SPILL. This patch also let bpf_for_each_spilled_reg
search STACK_ITER.
Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231018061746.111364-6-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
This patch adds kfuncs bpf_iter_css_task_{new,next,destroy} which allow
creation and manipulation of struct bpf_iter_css_task in open-coded
iterator style. These kfuncs actually wrapps css_task_iter_{start,next,
end}. BPF programs can use these kfuncs through bpf_for_each macro for
iteration of all tasks under a css.
css_task_iter_*() would try to get the global spin-lock *css_set_lock*, so
the bpf side has to be careful in where it allows to use this iter.
Currently we only allow it in bpf_lsm and bpf iter-s.
Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231018061746.111364-3-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next
Daniel Borkmann says:
====================
pull-request: bpf-next 2023-10-16
We've added 90 non-merge commits during the last 25 day(s) which contain
a total of 120 files changed, 3519 insertions(+), 895 deletions(-).
The main changes are:
1) Add missed stats for kprobes to retrieve the number of missed kprobe
executions and subsequent executions of BPF programs, from Jiri Olsa.
2) Add cgroup BPF sockaddr hooks for unix sockets. The use case is
for systemd to reimplement the LogNamespace feature which allows
running multiple instances of systemd-journald to process the logs
of different services, from Daan De Meyer.
3) Implement BPF CPUv4 support for s390x BPF JIT, from Ilya Leoshkevich.
4) Improve BPF verifier log output for scalar registers to better
disambiguate their internal state wrt defaults vs min/max values
matching, from Andrii Nakryiko.
5) Extend the BPF fib lookup helpers for IPv4/IPv6 to support retrieving
the source IP address with a new BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_SRC flag,
from Martynas Pumputis.
6) Add support for open-coded task_vma iterator to help with symbolization
for BPF-collected user stacks, from Dave Marchevsky.
7) Add libbpf getters for accessing individual BPF ring buffers which
is useful for polling them individually, for example, from Martin Kelly.
8) Extend AF_XDP selftests to validate the SHARED_UMEM feature,
from Tushar Vyavahare.
9) Improve BPF selftests cross-building support for riscv arch,
from Björn Töpel.
10) Add the ability to pin a BPF timer to the same calling CPU,
from David Vernet.
11) Fix libbpf's bpf_tracing.h macros for riscv to use the generic
implementation of PT_REGS_SYSCALL_REGS() to access syscall arguments,
from Alexandre Ghiti.
12) Extend libbpf to support symbol versioning for uprobes, from Hengqi Chen.
13) Fix bpftool's skeleton code generation to guarantee that ELF data
is 8 byte aligned, from Ian Rogers.
14) Inherit system-wide cpu_mitigations_off() setting for Spectre v1/v4
security mitigations in BPF verifier, from Yafang Shao.
15) Annotate struct bpf_stack_map with __counted_by attribute to prepare
BPF side for upcoming __counted_by compiler support, from Kees Cook.
* tag 'for-netdev' of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next: (90 commits)
bpf: Ensure proper register state printing for cond jumps
bpf: Disambiguate SCALAR register state output in verifier logs
selftests/bpf: Make align selftests more robust
selftests/bpf: Improve missed_kprobe_recursion test robustness
selftests/bpf: Improve percpu_alloc test robustness
selftests/bpf: Add tests for open-coded task_vma iter
bpf: Introduce task_vma open-coded iterator kfuncs
selftests/bpf: Rename bpf_iter_task_vma.c to bpf_iter_task_vmas.c
bpf: Don't explicitly emit BTF for struct btf_iter_num
bpf: Change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t
net/bpf: Avoid unused "sin_addr_len" warning when CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF is not set
bpf: Avoid unnecessary audit log for CPU security mitigations
selftests/bpf: Add tests for cgroup unix socket address hooks
selftests/bpf: Make sure mount directory exists
documentation/bpf: Document cgroup unix socket address hooks
bpftool: Add support for cgroup unix socket address hooks
libbpf: Add support for cgroup unix socket address hooks
bpf: Implement cgroup sockaddr hooks for unix sockets
bpf: Add bpf_sock_addr_set_sun_path() to allow writing unix sockaddr from bpf
bpf: Propagate modified uaddrlen from cgroup sockaddr programs
...
====================
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231016204803.30153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
Verifier emits relevant register state involved in any given instruction
next to it after `;` to the right, if possible. Or, worst case, on the
separate line repeating instruction index.
E.g., a nice and simple case would be:
2: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R0_w=0
But if there is some intervening extra output (e.g., precision
backtracking log) involved, we are supposed to see the state after the
precision backtrack log:
4: (75) if r0 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 4 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (b7) r0 = 0
6: R0_w=0
First off, note that in `6: R0_w=0` instruction index corresponds to the
next instruction, not to the conditional jump instruction itself, which
is wrong and we'll get to that.
But besides that, the above is a happy case that does work today. Yet,
if it so happens that precision backtracking had to traverse some of the
parent states, this `6: R0_w=0` state output would be missing.
This is due to a quirk of print_verifier_state() routine, which performs
mark_verifier_state_clean(env) at the end. This marks all registers as
"non-scratched", which means that subsequent logic to print *relevant*
registers (that is, "scratched ones") fails and doesn't see anything
relevant to print and skips the output altogether.
print_verifier_state() is used both to print instruction context, but
also to print an **entire** verifier state indiscriminately, e.g.,
during precision backtracking (and in a few other situations, like
during entering or exiting subprogram). Which means if we have to print
entire parent state before getting to printing instruction context
state, instruction context is marked as clean and is omitted.
Long story short, this is definitely not intentional. So we fix this
behavior in this patch by teaching print_verifier_state() to clear
scratch state only if it was used to print instruction state, not the
parent/callback state. This is determined by print_all option, so if
it's not set, we don't clear scratch state. This fixes missing
instruction state for these cases.
As for the mismatched instruction index, we fix that by making sure we
call print_insn_state() early inside check_cond_jmp_op() before we
adjusted insn_idx based on jump branch taken logic. And with that we get
desired correct information:
9: (16) if w4 == 0x1 goto pc+9
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs=r4 stack=: R2_w=1944 R4_rw=P1 R10=fp0
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 8 first_idx 0 subseq_idx 9
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 8: (66) if w4 s> 0x3 goto pc+5
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 7: (b7) r4 = 1
9: R4=1
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231011223728.3188086-6-andrii@kernel.org
|
|
Currently the way that verifier prints SCALAR_VALUE register state (and
PTR_TO_PACKET, which can have var_off and ranges info as well) is very
ambiguous.
In the name of brevity we are trying to eliminate "unnecessary" output
of umin/umax, smin/smax, u32_min/u32_max, and s32_min/s32_max values, if
possible. Current rules are that if any of those have their default
value (which for mins is the minimal value of its respective types: 0,
S32_MIN, or S64_MIN, while for maxs it's U32_MAX, S32_MAX, S64_MAX, or
U64_MAX) *OR* if there is another min/max value that as matching value.
E.g., if smin=100 and umin=100, we'll emit only umin=10, omitting smin
altogether. This approach has a few problems, being both ambiguous and
sort-of incorrect in some cases.
Ambiguity is due to missing value could be either default value or value
of umin/umax or smin/smax. This is especially confusing when we mix
signed and unsigned ranges. Quite often, umin=0 and smin=0, and so we'll
have only `umin=0` leaving anyone reading verifier log to guess whether
smin is actually 0 or it's actually -9223372036854775808 (S64_MIN). And
often times it's important to know, especially when debugging tricky
issues.
"Sort-of incorrectness" comes from mixing negative and positive values.
E.g., if umin is some large positive number, it can be equal to smin
which is, interpreted as signed value, is actually some negative value.
Currently, that smin will be omitted and only umin will be emitted with
a large positive value, giving an impression that smin is also positive.
Anyway, ambiguity is the biggest issue making it impossible to have an
exact understanding of register state, preventing any sort of automated
testing of verifier state based on verifier log. This patch is
attempting to rectify the situation by removing ambiguity, while
minimizing the verboseness of register state output.
The rules are straightforward:
- if some of the values are missing, then it definitely has a default
value. I.e., `umin=0` means that umin is zero, but smin is actually
S64_MIN;
- all the various boundaries that happen to have the same value are
emitted in one equality separated sequence. E.g., if umin and smin are
both 100, we'll emit `smin=umin=100`, making this explicit;
- we do not mix negative and positive values together, and even if
they happen to have the same bit-level value, they will be emitted
separately with proper sign. I.e., if both umax and smax happen to be
0xffffffffffffffff, we'll emit them both separately as
`smax=-1,umax=18446744073709551615`;
- in the name of a bit more uniformity and consistency,
{u32,s32}_{min,max} are renamed to {s,u}{min,max}32, which seems to
improve readability.
The above means that in case of all 4 ranges being, say, [50, 100] range,
we'd previously see hugely ambiguous:
R1=scalar(umin=50,umax=100)
Now, we'll be more explicit:
R1=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=50,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=100)
This is slightly more verbose, but distinct from the case when we don't
know anything about signed boundaries and 32-bit boundaries, which under
new rules will match the old case:
R1=scalar(umin=50,umax=100)
Also, in the name of simplicity of implementation and consistency, order
for {s,u}32_{min,max} are emitted *before* var_off. Previously they were
emitted afterwards, for unclear reasons.
This patch also includes a few fixes to selftests that expect exact
register state to accommodate slight changes to verifier format. You can
see that the changes are pretty minimal in common cases.
Note, the special case when SCALAR_VALUE register is a known constant
isn't changed, we'll emit constant value once, interpreted as signed
value.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231011223728.3188086-5-andrii@kernel.org
|
|
Cross-merge networking fixes after downstream PR.
No conflicts.
Adjacent changes:
kernel/bpf/verifier.c
829955981c55 ("bpf: Fix verifier log for async callback return values")
a923819fb2c5 ("bpf: Treat first argument as return value for bpf_throw")
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
These hooks allows intercepting connect(), getsockname(),
getpeername(), sendmsg() and recvmsg() for unix sockets. The unix
socket hooks get write access to the address length because the
address length is not fixed when dealing with unix sockets and
needs to be modified when a unix socket address is modified by
the hook. Because abstract socket unix addresses start with a
NUL byte, we cannot recalculate the socket address in kernelspace
after running the hook by calculating the length of the unix socket
path using strlen().
These hooks can be used when users want to multiplex syscall to a
single unix socket to multiple different processes behind the scenes
by redirecting the connect() and other syscalls to process specific
sockets.
We do not implement support for intercepting bind() because when
using bind() with unix sockets with a pathname address, this creates
an inode in the filesystem which must be cleaned up. If we rewrite
the address, the user might try to clean up the wrong file, leaking
the socket in the filesystem where it is never cleaned up. Until we
figure out a solution for this (and a use case for intercepting bind()),
we opt to not allow rewriting the sockaddr in bind() calls.
We also implement recvmsg() support for connected streams so that
after a connect() that is modified by a sockaddr hook, any corresponding
recmvsg() on the connected socket can also be modified to make the
connected program think it is connected to the "intended" remote.
Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Daan De Meyer <daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231011185113.140426-5-daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
|
|
The verifier, as part of check_return_code(), verifies that async
callbacks such as from e.g. timers, will return 0. It does this by
correctly checking that R0->var_off is in tnum_const(0), which
effectively checks that it's in a range of 0. If this condition fails,
however, it prints an error message which says that the value should
have been in (0x0; 0x1). This results in possibly confusing output such
as the following in which an async callback returns 1:
At async callback the register R0 has value (0x1; 0x0) should have been in (0x0; 0x1)
The fix is easy -- we should just pass the tnum_const(0) as the correct
range to verbose_invalid_scalar(), which will then print the following:
At async callback the register R0 has value (0x1; 0x0) should have been in (0x0; 0x0)
Fixes: bfc6bb74e4f1 ("bpf: Implement verifier support for validation of async callbacks.")
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231009161414.235829-1-void@manifault.com
|
|
Cross-merge networking fixes after downstream PR.
No conflicts (or adjacent changes of note).
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
On the architectures that use bpf_jit_needs_zext(), e.g., s390x, the
verifier incorrectly inserts a zero-extension after BPF_MEMSX, leading
to miscompilations like the one below:
24: 89 1a ff fe 00 00 00 00 "r1 = *(s16 *)(r10 - 2);" # zext_dst set
0x3ff7fdb910e: lgh %r2,-2(%r13,%r0) # load halfword
0x3ff7fdb9114: llgfr %r2,%r2 # wrong!
25: 65 10 00 03 00 00 7f ff if r1 s> 32767 goto +3 <l0_1> # check_cond_jmp_op()
Disable such zero-extensions. The JITs need to insert sign-extension
themselves, if necessary.
Suggested-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230919101336.2223655-2-iii@linux.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
|
In mark_chain_precision() logic, when we reach the entry to a global
func, it is expected that R1-R5 might be still requested to be marked
precise. This would correspond to some integer input arguments being
tracked as precise. This is all expected and handled as a special case.
What's not expected is that we'll leave backtrack_state structure with
some register bits set. This is because for subsequent precision
propagations backtrack_state is reused without clearing masks, as all
code paths are carefully written in a way to leave empty backtrack_state
with zeroed out masks, for speed.
The fix is trivial, we always clear register bit in the register mask, and
then, optionally, set reg->precise if register is SCALAR_VALUE type.
Reported-by: Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>
Fixes: be2ef8161572 ("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230918210110.2241458-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
