From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/11] bpf: Fix a false rejection caused by AND operation
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:58:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZb38EemdD8ahX4Px3vWCp=ani6vcX71Z-1_MLeATNjwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4fbce978-9687-48a9-be2a-1c4d76790f7d@huaweicloud.com>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 8:15 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/27/2024 4:36 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:26 PM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts
> >>>>>> is rejected by the verifier, and the log says:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
> >>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> >>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
> >>>>>> 1: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)
> >>>>>> func 'bpf_lsm_bpf_map' arg0 has btf_id 916 type STRUCT 'bpf_map'
> >>>>>> 2: R1=ctx() R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map()
> >>>>>> ; if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:29
> >>>>>> 2: (18) r3 = 0xffff9742c0951a00 ; R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
> >>>>>> 4: (5d) if r2 != r3 goto pc+4 ; R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map() R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
> >>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> >>>>>> 5: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) ; R0_w=scalar() R1=ctx()
> >>>>>> ; if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:32
> >>>>>> 6: (67) r0 <<= 62 ; R0_w=scalar(smax=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xc000000000000000,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xc000000000000000))
> >>>>>> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
> >>>>>> ; @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:0
> >>>>>> 8: (57) r0 &= -13 ; R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffff3))
> >>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> >>>>>> 9: (95) exit
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>
> >> As suggested by Eduard, this patch makes a special case for source
> >> or destination register of '&=' operation being in range [-1, 0].
> >>
> >> Meaning that one of the '&=' operands is either:
> >> - all ones, in which case the counterpart is the result of the operation;
> >> - all zeros, in which case zero is the result of the operation.
> >>
> >> And MIN and MAX values could be derived based on above two observations.
> >>
> >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e62e2971301ca7f2e9eb74fc500c520285cad8f5.camel@gmail.com/
> >> [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/4523a267829c807f3fc8fab8e5e9613985a51565/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> index 640747b53745..30c551d39329 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >> @@ -13374,6 +13374,24 @@ static void scalar32_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> >> dst_reg->u32_min_value = var32_off.value;
> >> dst_reg->u32_max_value = min(dst_reg->u32_max_value, umax_val);
> >>
> >> + /* Special case: src_reg is known and dst_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> >> + if (src_known &&
> >> + dst_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && dst_reg->s32_max_value == 0 &&
> >> + dst_reg->smin_value == -1 && dst_reg->smax_value == 0) {
> >
> > please keep if () condition aligned across multiple lines, it's super
> > confusing this way
> >
>
> OK, will update the align style
>
> >> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32, src_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> >> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32, src_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> >
> > do we need to update tnum parts as well (or reset and re-derive, probably)?
> >
> > btw, can't we support src being a range here? the idea is that dst_reg
> > either all ones or all zeros. For and it means that it either stays
> > all zero, or will be *exactly equal* to src, right? So I think the
> > logic would be:
> >
> > a) if [s32_min, s32_max] is on the same side of zero, then resulting
> > range would be [min(s32_min, 0), max(s32_max, 0)], just like you have
> > here
> >
> > b) if [s32_min, s32_max] contains zero, then resulting range will be
> > exactly [s32_min, s32_max]
> >
> > Or did I make a mistake above?
> >
>
> Totally agree, the AND of any set with the range [-1,0] is equivalent
> to adding number 0 to the set!
>
> Based on this observation, I've rewritten the patch as follows.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/tnum.h b/include/linux/tnum.h
> index 3c13240077b8..5e795d728b9f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tnum.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tnum.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ struct tnum tnum_mul(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
> /* Return a tnum representing numbers satisfying both @a and @b */
> struct tnum tnum_intersect(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
>
> +/* Return a tnum representing numbers satisfying either @a or @b */
> +struct tnum tnum_union(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
> +
> /* Return @a with all but the lowest @size bytes cleared */
> struct tnum tnum_cast(struct tnum a, u8 size);
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> index 9dbc31b25e3d..9d4480a683ca 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> @@ -150,6 +150,29 @@ struct tnum tnum_intersect(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
> return TNUM(v & ~mu, mu);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Each bit has 3 states: unkown, known 0, known 1. If using x to represent
> + * unknown state, the result of the union of two bits is as follows:
> + *
> + * | x 0 1
> + * -----+------------
> + * x | x x x
> + * 0 | x 0 x
> + * 1 | x x 1
> + *
> + * For tnum a and b, only the bits that are both known 0 or known 1 in a
> + * and b are known in the result of union a and b.
> + */
> +struct tnum tnum_union(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
> +{
> + u64 v0, v1, mu;
> +
> + mu = a.mask | b.mask; // unkown bits either in a or b
> + v1 = (a.value & b.value) & ~mu; // "known 1" bits in both a and b
> + v0 = (~a.value & ~b.value) & ~mu; // "known 0" bits in both a and b
no C++-style comments, please
> + return TNUM(v1, mu | ~(v0 | v1));
> +}
> +
I've CC'ed Edward, hopefully he can take a look as well. Please CC him
on future patches touching tnum as well.
> struct tnum tnum_cast(struct tnum a, u8 size)
> {
> a.value &= (1ULL << (size * 8)) - 1;
> {
> a.value &= (1ULL << (size * 8)) - 1;
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 8f0f2e21699e..b69c89bc5cfc 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -13478,6 +13478,28 @@ static void scalar32_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> return;
> }
>
> + /* Special case: dst_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> + if (dst_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && dst_reg->s32_max_value == 0) {
> + var32_off = tnum_union(src_reg->var_off, tnum_const(0));
> + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(dst_reg->var_off, var32_off);
> + dst_reg->u32_min_value = var32_off.value;
> + dst_reg->u32_max_value = min(dst_reg->u32_max_value, umax_val);
can you explain the logic behing u32 min/max updates, especially that
we use completely different values for min/max and it's not clear why
u32_min <= u32_max invariant will always hold. Same below
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32, src_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32, src_reg->s32_max_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Special case: src_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> + if (src_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && src_reg->s32_max_value == 0) {
> + var32_off = tnum_union(dst_reg->var_off, tnum_const(0));
> + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(dst_reg->var_off, var32_off);
> + dst_reg->u32_min_value = var32_off.value;
> + dst_reg->u32_max_value = min(dst_reg->u32_max_value, umax_val);
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32, dst_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32, dst_reg->s32_max_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* We get our minimum from the var_off, since that's inherently
> * bitwise. Our maximum is the minimum of the operands' maxima.
> */
> @@ -13508,6 +13530,26 @@ static void scalar_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> return;
> }
>
> + /* Special case: dst_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> + if (dst_reg->smin_value == -1 && dst_reg->smax_value == 0) {
> + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_union(src_reg->var_off, tnum_const(0));
> + dst_reg->umin_value = dst_reg->var_off.value;
> + dst_reg->umax_value = min(dst_reg->umax_value, umax_val);
> + dst_reg->smin_value = min_t(s64, src_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->smax_value = max_t(s64, src_reg->smax_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Special case: src_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> + if (src_reg->smin_value == -1 && src_reg->smax_value == 0) {
> + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_union(dst_reg->var_off, tnum_const(0));
> + dst_reg->umin_value = dst_reg->var_off.value;
> + dst_reg->umax_value = min(dst_reg->umax_value, umax_val);
> + dst_reg->smin_value = min_t(s64, dst_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->smax_value = max_t(s64, dst_reg->smax_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
>
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* Special case: dst_reg is known and src_reg is in range [-1, 0] */
> >> + if (dst_known &&
> >> + src_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && src_reg->s32_max_value == 0 &&
> >> + src_reg->smin_value == -1 && src_reg->smax_value == 0) {
> >> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32, dst_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> >> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32, dst_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> /* Safe to set s32 bounds by casting u32 result into s32 when u32
> >> * doesn't cross sign boundary. Otherwise set s32 bounds to unbounded.
> >> */
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-29 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-11 12:27 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/11] Add check for bpf lsm return value Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/11] bpf, lsm: Annotate lsm hook return value range Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/11] bpf, lsm: Add helper to read " Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/11] bpf, lsm: Check bpf lsm hook return values in verifier Xu Kuohai
2024-04-13 11:44 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/11] bpf, lsm: Add bpf lsm disabled hook list Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/11] bpf: Avoid progs for different hooks calling each other with tail call Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/11] bpf: Fix compare error in function retval_range_within Xu Kuohai
2024-04-12 8:53 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2024-04-25 23:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-26 8:08 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/11] bpf: Fix a false rejection caused by AND operation Xu Kuohai
2024-04-19 23:00 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-20 8:33 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-23 21:55 ` Yonghong Song
2024-04-24 2:25 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-24 22:06 ` Yonghong Song
2024-04-25 2:42 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-25 16:28 ` Yonghong Song
2024-04-26 7:43 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-26 20:36 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-28 15:15 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-29 20:58 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2024-04-29 22:18 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-30 3:56 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-30 3:54 ` Xu Kuohai
2024-04-29 21:56 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/11] selftests/bpf: Avoid load failure for token_lsm.c Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/11] selftests/bpf: Add return value checks for failed tests Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add test for lsm tail call Xu Kuohai
2024-04-11 12:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/11] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for bpf lsm Xu Kuohai
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='CAEf4BzZb38EemdD8ahX4Px3vWCp=ani6vcX71Z-1_MLeATNjwQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ecree.xilinx@gmail.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shung-hsi.yu@suse.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=xukuohai@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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).