bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@orange.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
	xiao.han@orange.com, paul.chaignon@gmail.com,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:33:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190321093304.GA1001@Nover> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e84ec4b3-ea21-a2ed-d6fb-1c899ef748d0@fb.com>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:31PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 3/20/19 5:57 AM, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > The BPF verifier checks the maximum number of call stack frames twice,
> > first in the main CFG traversal (do_check) and then in a subsequent
> > traversal (check_max_stack_depth).  If the second check fails, it logs a
> > 'verifier bug' warning and errors out, as the number of call stack frames
> > should have been verified already.
> > 
> > However, the second check may fail without indicating a verifier bug: if
> > the excessive function calls reside in dead code, the main CFG traversal
> > may not visit them; the subsequent traversal visits all instructions,
> > including dead code.
> > 
> > This case raises the question of how invalid dead code should be treated.
> 
> Maybe we should do this check after dead code elimination to be 
> consistent with do_check? There could some other kinds of illegal stuff

To be clear, are you suggesting we run check_max_stack_depth after the
dead code elimination?  That would indeed solve this issue, but Jakub made
the exact reverse change not so long ago, in 9b38c40 ("bpf: verifier:
reorder stack size check with dead code sanitization").  I think the idea
was to avoid having code modifications in between code checks.

> in the dead code, e.g., illegal/unsupported helpers, etc. I suppose we 
> did not warn or reject the program, right?

As far as I know, we do not warn or reject the programs for other illegal
stuff found in dead code, no.

> 
> > The first patch implements the conservative option and rejects such code;
> > the second adds a test case.
> > 
> > Paul Chaignon (2):
> >    bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning
> >    selftests/bpf: test case for invalid call stack in dead code
> > 
> >   kernel/bpf/verifier.c                        |  5 +--
> >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-21  9:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-20 12:57 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 12:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] " Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 12:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for invalid call stack in dead code Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 23:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning Yonghong Song
2019-03-21  9:33   ` Paul Chaignon [this message]
2019-03-26 20:07     ` Alexei Starovoitov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190321093304.GA1001@Nover \
    --to=paul.chaignon@orange.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=xiao.han@orange.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).