Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters

Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters

[Dan Rosenberg]

The code sample I linked to clearly demonstrates exactly how to accomplish this, if you had bothered to read it.  I install a socket filter that loads the desired uninitialized int into the accumulator, performs some bit shifting to get the desired byte, and returns the accumulator.  Since the packet size is greater than 256, the packet will be truncated based on the value of that byte, allowing me to determine its value.

There are no restrictions - I can access any byte in the array regardless of its value.

-Dan


------Original Message------
From: David Miller
To: drosenberg@vsecurity.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Cc: security@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters
Sent: Nov 10, 2010 1:07 PM

From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:12:47 -0500

> 
>> 
>> Prove it.
> 
> I hope this was a joke.

It absolutely is not.

You are very much not the first person ever to try and add an
expensive memset() here.

So the onus is really on you to prove this assertion and show the
exact code path by which the user can actually see any uninitialized
kernel stack memory (he can't, he can peek at certain values in a
certain extremely contrived range, making the leak useless), rather
than point us at some web external site archive of a list posting
which we cannot easily quote and reply to here.

I think you cannot do it, really.  Except in the AF_PACKET case, the
sockets can only see "0" or a negative error code, not the actual
sk_run_filter() return value.

In the one exception, AF_PACKET, the range of values the user can
see are in the range of MTU of the device being accessed, which
realistically is 1500 bytes.  This means the user cannot see any
kernel stack value outside of the range 0 to 1500, which isn't
worth using this expensive memset to guard against at all.

I don't even think it's worth adding all of the extra cpu cycles
incurred by Eric Dumazet's scheme of using a bitmap test on every
single memory buffer access.

Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters

[David Miller]

From: "Dan Rosenberg" <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:18:08 +0000

> The code sample I linked to clearly demonstrates exactly how to
> accomplish this, if you had bothered to read it.

I told you why I didn't read it, if you had bothered to read my
reply properly :-)

Anyways, I realize we have to do something, but memset() is going
to completely kill performance.  I consider Eric's suggestion the
closest to acceptable cost at this point but even that is hard
to digest for me.

Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mercredi 10 novembre 2010 à 10:21 -0800, David Miller a écrit :
> From: "Dan Rosenberg" <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:18:08 +0000
> 
> > The code sample I linked to clearly demonstrates exactly how to
> > accomplish this, if you had bothered to read it.
> 
> I told you why I didn't read it, if you had bothered to read my
> reply properly :-)
> 
> Anyways, I realize we have to do something, but memset() is going
> to completely kill performance.  I consider Eric's suggestion the
> closest to acceptable cost at this point but even that is hard
> to digest for me.


Most filters dont use mem[] at all, so the added cost seems OK to me,
but we can work to use a compile time check, to make memset(mem, 0,
length) a filter parameter if you prefer removing the test on each
load(mem[K]).

This memset() could be avoided if the compiler() can be sure all
load(mem[K]) follow a prior store(mem[K])

Its not a five minutes patch, I tried to work on it but it was a bit
hard, for a very remote security risk.

(On x86 platform, incoming packets are handled in SOFTIRQ stack, not the
kernel stack of current thread anyway)

Re: [PATCH] Prevent reading uninitialized memory with socketfilters

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:33:44 +0100

> Most filters dont use mem[] at all, so the added cost seems OK to me,
> but we can work to use a compile time check, to make memset(mem, 0,
> length) a filter parameter if you prefer removing the test on each
> load(mem[K]).
> 
> This memset() could be avoided if the compiler() can be sure all
> load(mem[K]) follow a prior store(mem[K])
> 
> Its not a five minutes patch, I tried to work on it but it was a bit
> hard, for a very remote security risk.
> 
> (On x86 platform, incoming packets are handled in SOFTIRQ stack, not the
> kernel stack of current thread anyway)

Understood, I'm going to apply your patch for now with the
"const filter pointer" and "u32 f_k = fentry->k;" changes.

[PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Tetsuo Handa]

In the wake of commit 57fe93b3 "filter: make sure filters dont read
uninitialized memory", I came up with this patch. I don't know how to test.
Please review and do tests.

This patch optimizes sk_chk_filter(). Using gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32, the size of
net/core/filter.o changed from 7416 bytes to 5260 bytes
("make allnoconfig" + CONFIG_NET=y).

By the way, if "struct sock_filter *filter" argument of sk_run_filter() does
not change after it was revalidated at sk_chk_filter(), can't we detect and
reject "BPF_S_LD_MEM/BPF_S_LDX_MEM before BPF_S_ST/BPF_S_STX" at
sk_chk_filter()?
----------------------------------------
 From 2bf36130bd4912590b409b47a6a9a82e2884e035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:50 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

Since repeating small value to small value conversion using switch() clause's
case statement is wasteful, this patch instroduces u16 to u16 mapping table
and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
is reduced by about 30% on x86.

Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 net/core/filter.c |  214 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
 1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 149 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 23e9b2a..85be3d8 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
  */
 int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 {
-	struct sock_filter *ftest;
+	/*
+	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
+	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
+	 */
+	static u16 codes[] = {
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG]        = BPF_S_ALU_NEG + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]   = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_W_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_H_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_B_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_IMM]         = BPF_S_LD_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]  = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH]  = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM]        = BPF_S_LDX_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX]       = BPF_S_MISC_TAX + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA]       = BPF_S_MISC_TXA + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_K]          = BPF_S_RET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_A]          = BPF_S_RET_A + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_MEM]         = BPF_S_LD_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM]        = BPF_S_LDX_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_ST]                 = BPF_S_ST + 1,
+		[BPF_STX]                = BPF_S_STX + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JA]         = BPF_S_JMP_JA + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X + 1,
+	};
 	int pc;
 
 	if (flen == 0 || flen > BPF_MAXINSNS)
@@ -391,135 +441,26 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 
 	/* check the filter code now */
 	for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
-		ftest = &filter[pc];
-
-		/* Only allow valid instructions */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_NEG;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TAX;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TXA;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_A:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_A;
-			break;
+		struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
+		u16 code = ftest->code;
 
+		if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
+			return 0;
 		/* Some instructions need special checks */
-
-			/* check for division by zero */
+		switch (code) {
 		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
+			/* check for division by zero */
 			if (ftest->k == 0)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
 			break;
-
-		/* check for invalid memory addresses */
 		case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_MEM;
-			break;
 		case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_MEM;
-			break;
 		case BPF_ST:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ST;
-			break;
 		case BPF_STX:
+			/* check for invalid memory addresses */
 			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_STX;
 			break;
-
 		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JA:
 			/*
 			 * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
@@ -528,40 +469,14 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 			 */
 			if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JA;
-			break;
-
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X;
 			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X;
-			break;
-
-		default:
-			return -EINVAL;
 		}
-
-			/* for conditionals both must be safe */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
+		code = codes[code];
+		if (!code--)
+			return -EINVAL;
+
+		/* for conditionals both must be safe */
+		switch (code) {
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K:
@@ -574,6 +489,7 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 			    pc + ftest->jf + 1 >= flen)
 				return -EINVAL;
 		}
+		ftest->code = code;
 	}
 
 	/* last instruction must be a RET code */
-- 
1.6.1

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Michael Tokarev]

16.11.2010 16:08, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[]
>  net/core/filter.c |  214 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 149 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 23e9b2a..85be3d8 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>   */
>  int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>  {
> -	struct sock_filter *ftest;
> +	/*
> +	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
> +	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
> +	 */
> +	static u16 codes[] = {
> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,

How about using some "const" there?  :)

/mjt

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 22:08 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> In the wake of commit 57fe93b3 "filter: make sure filters dont read
> uninitialized memory", I came up with this patch. I don't know how to test.
> Please review and do tests.
> 
> This patch optimizes sk_chk_filter(). Using gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32, the size of
> net/core/filter.o changed from 7416 bytes to 5260 bytes
> ("make allnoconfig" + CONFIG_NET=y).
> 
> By the way, if "struct sock_filter *filter" argument of sk_run_filter() does
> not change after it was revalidated at sk_chk_filter(), can't we detect and
> reject "BPF_S_LD_MEM/BPF_S_LDX_MEM before BPF_S_ST/BPF_S_STX" at
> sk_chk_filter()?

Sure, this was the idea, but seems complex because of branches.

Patches are welcomed ;)

> ----------------------------------------
>  From 2bf36130bd4912590b409b47a6a9a82e2884e035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:50 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
> 
> Since repeating small value to small value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch instroduces u16 to u16 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 30% on x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---

Patch seems fine to me, with the 'const' codes[] Michael Tokarev already
spotted.

Thanks

[PATCH v2] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Tetsuo Handa]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Patch seems fine to me, with the 'const' codes[] Michael Tokarev already
> spotted.

Sorry, I forgot to evaluate

	default:
		return -EINVAL;
	}

case. If caller passed ftest->code == BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K (translated value)
rather than ftest->code == BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K (original value), the check

	case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
		if (ftest->k == 0)
			return -EINVAL;
		ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
		break;

is bypassed. The problem is that original value and translated value overwraps.
Can we change translated value in order to guarantee that these values never
overwraps?
----------------------------------------
 From 7b6a7b784fa096383aadc86d32bff6b8329a2e66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:37:45 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2] filter: optimize instruction revalidation code.

Since repeating small value to small value conversion using switch() clause's
case statement is wasteful, this patch instroduces u16 to u16 mapping table
and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
is reduced by about 27% on x86.

Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 net/core/filter.c |  223 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
 1 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 23e9b2a..ef1d226 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
  */
 int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 {
-	struct sock_filter *ftest;
+	/*
+	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
+	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
+	 */
+	static const u16 codes[] = {
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG]        = BPF_S_ALU_NEG + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]   = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_W_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_H_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_B_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_IMM]         = BPF_S_LD_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]  = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH]  = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM]        = BPF_S_LDX_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX]       = BPF_S_MISC_TAX + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA]       = BPF_S_MISC_TXA + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_K]          = BPF_S_RET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_A]          = BPF_S_RET_A + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_MEM]         = BPF_S_LD_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM]        = BPF_S_LDX_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_ST]                 = BPF_S_ST + 1,
+		[BPF_STX]                = BPF_S_STX + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JA]         = BPF_S_JMP_JA + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X + 1,
+	};
 	int pc;
 
 	if (flen == 0 || flen > BPF_MAXINSNS)
@@ -391,136 +441,30 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 
 	/* check the filter code now */
 	for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
-		ftest = &filter[pc];
-
-		/* Only allow valid instructions */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_NEG;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TAX;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TXA;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_A:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_A;
-			break;
+		struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
+		u16 code = ftest->code;
 
+		if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
+			return -EINVAL;
+		code = codes[code];
+		if (!code--)
+			return -EINVAL;
 		/* Some instructions need special checks */
-
+		switch (code) {
+		case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K:
 			/* check for division by zero */
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
 			if (ftest->k == 0)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
-			break;
-
-		/* check for invalid memory addresses */
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_MEM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_MEM;
 			break;
-		case BPF_ST:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ST;
-			break;
-		case BPF_STX:
+		case BPF_S_LD_MEM:
+		case BPF_S_LDX_MEM:
+		case BPF_S_ST:
+		case BPF_S_STX:
+			/* check for invalid memory addresses */
 			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_STX;
 			break;
-
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JA:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JA:
 			/*
 			 * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
 			 * Compare this with conditional jumps below,
@@ -528,40 +472,7 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 			 */
 			if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JA;
-			break;
-
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K;
 			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X;
-			break;
-
-		default:
-			return -EINVAL;
-		}
-
-			/* for conditionals both must be safe */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K:
@@ -570,10 +481,12 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K:
+			/* for conditionals both must be safe */
 			if (pc + ftest->jt + 1 >= flen ||
 			    pc + ftest->jf + 1 >= flen)
 				return -EINVAL;
 		}
+		ftest->code = code;
 	}
 
 	/* last instruction must be a RET code */
-- 
1.6.1

Re: [PATCH v2] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 23:31 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Patch seems fine to me, with the 'const' codes[] Michael Tokarev already
> > spotted.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot to evaluate
> 
> 	default:
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	}
> 
> case. If caller passed ftest->code == BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K (translated value)
> rather than ftest->code == BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K (original value), the check
> 
> 	case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
> 		if (ftest->k == 0)
> 			return -EINVAL;
> 		ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
> 		break;
> 
> is bypassed. The problem is that original value and translated value overwraps.
> Can we change translated value in order to guarantee that these values never
> overwraps?


I dont understand the problem...
Once translated, you have to test the translated code, not the original
one ;)


> ----------------------------------------
>  From 7b6a7b784fa096383aadc86d32bff6b8329a2e66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:37:45 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v2] filter: optimize instruction revalidation code.
> 
> Since repeating small value to small value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch instroduces u16 to u16 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 27% on x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  net/core/filter.c |  223 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 23e9b2a..ef1d226 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>   */
>  int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>  {
> -	struct sock_filter *ftest;
> +	/*
> +	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
> +	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
> +	 */
> +	static const u16 codes[] = {


why u16 ? 

You store translated instructions, so u8 is OK

> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
> +		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,



Also fix the indentation at the end of sk_chk_filter()

You have 3 extra tabulations :

        /* last instruction must be a RET code */
        switch (filter[flen - 1].code) {
        case BPF_S_RET_K:
        case BPF_S_RET_A:
                return 0;
                break;
!here!          default:
!here!                   return -EINVAL;
!here!          }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_chk_filter);

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Hagen Paul Pfeifer]

* Tetsuo Handa | 2010-11-16 22:08:50 [+0900]:

>--- a/net/core/filter.c
>+++ b/net/core/filter.c
>@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>  */
> int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
> {
>-	struct sock_filter *ftest;
>+	/*
>+	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
>+	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
>+	 */
>+	static u16 codes[] = {
>+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
>+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
>+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
[...]

Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?

If this question is answered (or fixed):

Signed-off-by: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>

HGN

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Changli Gao]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> In the wake of commit 57fe93b3 "filter: make sure filters dont read
> uninitialized memory", I came up with this patch. I don't know how to test.
> Please review and do tests.
>
> This patch optimizes sk_chk_filter(). Using gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32, the size of
> net/core/filter.o changed from 7416 bytes to 5260 bytes
> ("make allnoconfig" + CONFIG_NET=y).
>
> By the way, if "struct sock_filter *filter" argument of sk_run_filter() does
> not change after it was revalidated at sk_chk_filter(), can't we detect and
> reject "BPF_S_LD_MEM/BPF_S_LDX_MEM before BPF_S_ST/BPF_S_STX" at
> sk_chk_filter()?
> ----------------------------------------
>  From 2bf36130bd4912590b409b47a6a9a82e2884e035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:50 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
>
> Since repeating small value to small value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch instroduces u16 to u16 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 30% on x86.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  net/core/filter.c |  214 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 149 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 23e9b2a..85be3d8 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>  */
>  int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>  {
> -       struct sock_filter *ftest;
> +       /*
> +        * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
> +        * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
> +        */
> +       static u16 codes[] = {
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG]        = BPF_S_ALU_NEG + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]   = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_W_IND + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_H_IND + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_B_IND + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_IMM]         = BPF_S_LD_IMM + 1,
> +               [BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]  = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN + 1,
> +               [BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH]  = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH + 1,
> +               [BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM]        = BPF_S_LDX_IMM + 1,
> +               [BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX]       = BPF_S_MISC_TAX + 1,
> +               [BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA]       = BPF_S_MISC_TXA + 1,
> +               [BPF_RET|BPF_K]          = BPF_S_RET_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_RET|BPF_A]          = BPF_S_RET_A + 1,
> +               [BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_LD|BPF_MEM]         = BPF_S_LD_MEM + 1,
> +               [BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM]        = BPF_S_LDX_MEM + 1,
> +               [BPF_ST]                 = BPF_S_ST + 1,
> +               [BPF_STX]                = BPF_S_STX + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JA]         = BPF_S_JMP_JA + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K + 1,
> +               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X + 1,
> +       };
>        int pc;
>
>        if (flen == 0 || flen > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> @@ -391,135 +441,26 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>
>        /* check the filter code now */
>        for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
> -               ftest = &filter[pc];
> -
> -               /* Only allow valid instructions */
> -               switch (ftest->code) {
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_NEG;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_IND;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_IND;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_IND;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LD|BPF_IMM:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_IMM;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_IMM;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TAX;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TXA;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_RET|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_RET|BPF_A:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_A;
> -                       break;
> +               struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];

Why move the define here?

> +               u16 code = ftest->code;
>
> +               if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
> +                       return 0;

return -EINVAL;

>                /* Some instructions need special checks */
> -
> -                       /* check for division by zero */
> +               switch (code) {
>                case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
> +                       /* check for division by zero */
>                        if (ftest->k == 0)
>                                return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
>                        break;
> -
> -               /* check for invalid memory addresses */
>                case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
> -                       if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
> -                               return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_MEM;
> -                       break;
>                case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
> -                       if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
> -                               return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_MEM;
> -                       break;
>                case BPF_ST:
> -                       if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
> -                               return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_ST;
> -                       break;
>                case BPF_STX:
> +                       /* check for invalid memory addresses */
>                        if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
>                                return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_STX;
>                        break;
> -
>                case BPF_JMP|BPF_JA:
>                        /*
>                         * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
> @@ -528,40 +469,14 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>                         */
>                        if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
>                                return -EINVAL;
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JA;
> -                       break;
> -
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X;
>                        break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K;
> -                       break;
> -               case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X:
> -                       ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X;
> -                       break;
> -
> -               default:
> -                       return -EINVAL;
>                }
> -
> -                       /* for conditionals both must be safe */
> -               switch (ftest->code) {
> +               code = codes[code];
> +               if (!code--)
> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +
> +               /* for conditionals both must be safe */
> +               switch (code) {
>                case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K:
>                case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X:
>                case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K:
> @@ -574,6 +489,7 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>                            pc + ftest->jf + 1 >= flen)
>                                return -EINVAL;
>                }
> +               ftest->code = code;
>        }
>
>        /* last instruction must be a RET code */
> --
> 1.6.1
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Changli Gao]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net> wrote:
> * Tetsuo Handa | 2010-11-16 22:08:50 [+0900]:
>
>>--- a/net/core/filter.c
>>+++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>>  */
>> int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>> {
>>-      struct sock_filter *ftest;
>>+      /*
>>+       * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
>>+       * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
>>+       */
>>+      static u16 codes[] = {
>>+              [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
>>+              [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
>>+              [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
> [...]
>
> Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
> increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
> the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?
>

+               code = codes[code];
+               if (!code--)
+                       return -EINVAL;

But how about this:

enum {
        BPF_S_RET_K = 1,

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Hagen Paul Pfeifer]

* Changli Gao | 2010-11-17 07:31:51 [+0800]:

>> Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
>> increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
>> the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?
>>
>
>+               code = codes[code];
>+               if (!code--)
>+                       return -EINVAL;

Right, temporary in sk_chk_filter() but as I wrote earlier not in sk_run_filter().

>But how about this:
>
>enum {
>        BPF_S_RET_K = 1,

better.

Best regards, Hagen

BTW: you can verify your code by construct some artificial filter rules via

struct sock_filter {
	uint16_t  code;   /* Actual filter code */
	uint8_t   jt;     /* Jump true */
	uint8_t   jf;     /* Jump false */
	uint32_t  k;      /* Generic multiuse field
};

and attach them to a socket with setsockopt.

[PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Tetsuo Handa]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I dont understand the problem...
> Once translated, you have to test the translated code, not the original
> one ;)

I moved the test to after translation.

> why u16 ? 
> 
> You store translated instructions, so u8 is OK

I chose u16 because type of filter->code is __u16.
But I changed to use u8 as you suggested that translated code fits in u8.

> Also fix the indentation at the end of sk_chk_filter()
> 
> You have 3 extra tabulations :

Fixed.

Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
> increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
> the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?

I added a comment line.

Changli Gao wrote:
> > +               struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
> 
> Why move the define here?

To suppress compiler's warning about mixed declaration.

> > +               u16 code = ftest->code;
> >
> > +               if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
> > +                       return 0;
> 
> return -EINVAL;

Fixed in v2. Thanks.

> But how about this:
> 
> enum {
>         BPF_S_RET_K = 1,

If BPF_S_* are only for kernel internal use, I think we don't need to translate
from the beginning because only net/core/filter.c uses BPF_S_*.

BPF_S_* are exposed to userspace via /usr/include/linux/filter.h since 2.6.36.
Is it no problem to change?

Filesize change (x86_32) by this patch:
  gcc 3.3.5: 7184 -> 5060
  gcc 4.4.3: 7972 -> 5588
----------------------------------------
>From b8777ab64bc31dbbe499eb62c2ffd29add7e79c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:46:33 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

Since repeating u16 value to u8 value conversion using switch() clause's
case statement is wasteful, this patch introduces u16 to u8 mapping table
and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
is reduced by about 29% on x86.

Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
 net/core/filter.c |  231 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
 1 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
index 23e9b2a..03dc071 100644
--- a/net/core/filter.c
+++ b/net/core/filter.c
@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
  */
 int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 {
-	struct sock_filter *ftest;
+	/*
+	 * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
+	 * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
+	 */
+	static const u8 codes[] = {
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG]        = BPF_S_ALU_NEG + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]   = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_W_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_H_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_B_IND + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_IMM]         = BPF_S_LD_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]  = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH]  = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM]        = BPF_S_LDX_IMM + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX]       = BPF_S_MISC_TAX + 1,
+		[BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA]       = BPF_S_MISC_TXA + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_K]          = BPF_S_RET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_RET|BPF_A]          = BPF_S_RET_A + 1,
+		[BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K + 1,
+		[BPF_LD|BPF_MEM]         = BPF_S_LD_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM]        = BPF_S_LDX_MEM + 1,
+		[BPF_ST]                 = BPF_S_ST + 1,
+		[BPF_STX]                = BPF_S_STX + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JA]         = BPF_S_JMP_JA + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K + 1,
+		[BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X + 1,
+	};
 	int pc;
 
 	if (flen == 0 || flen > BPF_MAXINSNS)
@@ -391,136 +441,31 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 
 	/* check the filter code now */
 	for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
-		ftest = &filter[pc];
-
-		/* Only allow valid instructions */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_NEG;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_W_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_H_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_B_IND;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_IMM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TAX;
-			break;
-		case BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_MISC_TXA;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_RET|BPF_A:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_RET_A;
-			break;
+		struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
+		u16 code = ftest->code;
 
+		if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
+			return -EINVAL;
+		code = codes[code];
+		/* Undo the '+ 1' in codes[] after validation. */
+		if (!code--)
+			return -EINVAL;
 		/* Some instructions need special checks */
-
+		switch (code) {
+		case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K:
 			/* check for division by zero */
-		case BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K:
 			if (ftest->k == 0)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K;
 			break;
-
-		/* check for invalid memory addresses */
-		case BPF_LD|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LD_MEM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_LDX_MEM;
-			break;
-		case BPF_ST:
-			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
-				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_ST;
-			break;
-		case BPF_STX:
+		case BPF_S_LD_MEM:
+		case BPF_S_LDX_MEM:
+		case BPF_S_ST:
+		case BPF_S_STX:
+			/* check for invalid memory addresses */
 			if (ftest->k >= BPF_MEMWORDS)
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_STX;
 			break;
-
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JA:
+		case BPF_S_JMP_JA:
 			/*
 			 * Note, the large ftest->k might cause loops.
 			 * Compare this with conditional jumps below,
@@ -528,40 +473,7 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 			 */
 			if (ftest->k >= (unsigned)(flen-pc-1))
 				return -EINVAL;
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JA;
-			break;
-
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X;
 			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K;
-			break;
-		case BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X:
-			ftest->code = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X;
-			break;
-
-		default:
-			return -EINVAL;
-		}
-
-			/* for conditionals both must be safe */
-		switch (ftest->code) {
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K:
@@ -570,10 +482,13 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X:
 		case BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K:
+			/* for conditionals both must be safe */
 			if (pc + ftest->jt + 1 >= flen ||
 			    pc + ftest->jf + 1 >= flen)
 				return -EINVAL;
+			break;
 		}
+		ftest->code = code;
 	}
 
 	/* last instruction must be a RET code */
@@ -581,10 +496,8 @@ int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
 	case BPF_S_RET_K:
 	case BPF_S_RET_A:
 		return 0;
-		break;
-		default:
-			return -EINVAL;
-		}
+	}
+	return -EINVAL;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_chk_filter);
 
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mercredi 17 novembre 2010 à 10:19 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I dont understand the problem...
> > Once translated, you have to test the translated code, not the original
> > one ;)
> 
> I moved the test to after translation.
> 
> > why u16 ? 
> > 
> > You store translated instructions, so u8 is OK
> 
> I chose u16 because type of filter->code is __u16.
> But I changed to use u8 as you suggested that translated code fits in u8.
> 
> > Also fix the indentation at the end of sk_chk_filter()
> > 
> > You have 3 extra tabulations :
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> > Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
> > increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
> > the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?
> 
> I added a comment line.
> 
> Changli Gao wrote:
> > > +               struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
> > 
> > Why move the define here?
> 
> To suppress compiler's warning about mixed declaration.
> 
> > > +               u16 code = ftest->code;
> > >
> > > +               if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
> > > +                       return 0;
> > 
> > return -EINVAL;
> 
> Fixed in v2. Thanks.
> 
> > But how about this:
> > 
> > enum {
> >         BPF_S_RET_K = 1,
> 
> If BPF_S_* are only for kernel internal use, I think we don't need to translate
> from the beginning because only net/core/filter.c uses BPF_S_*.
> 
> BPF_S_* are exposed to userspace via /usr/include/linux/filter.h since 2.6.36.
> Is it no problem to change?

No problem, and Changli posted patch to move them to net/core/filter.c
anyway.

> 
> Filesize change (x86_32) by this patch:
>   gcc 3.3.5: 7184 -> 5060
>   gcc 4.4.3: 7972 -> 5588
> ----------------------------------------
> From b8777ab64bc31dbbe499eb62c2ffd29add7e79c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:46:33 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
> 
> Since repeating u16 value to u8 value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch introduces u16 to u8 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 29% on x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  net/core/filter.c |  231 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)
> 

Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>

Please repost it when Changli patch is accepted by David 
(if accepted :)), to get rid of the "+ 1"

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Changli Gao]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>
> Please repost it when Changli patch is accepted by David
> (if accepted :)), to get rid of the "+ 1"
>

Oh. No need, if David accepts this patch first, otherwise, there is
just some offset, and patch can handle it. :)


-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Tetsuo Handa]

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > But how about this:
> > > 
> > > enum {
> > >         BPF_S_RET_K = 1,
> > 
> > If BPF_S_* are only for kernel internal use, I think we don't need to translate
> > from the beginning because only net/core/filter.c uses BPF_S_*.
> > 
> > BPF_S_* are exposed to userspace via /usr/include/linux/filter.h since 2.6.36.
> > Is it no problem to change?
> 
> No problem, and Changli posted patch to move them to net/core/filter.c
> anyway.

> Please repost it when Changli patch is accepted by David 
> (if accepted :)), to get rid of the "+ 1"

But if Changli's patch is accepted, we can remove BPF_S_* like below.

 	switch (fentry->code) {
-	case BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X:
+	case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X: /* BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X */
 		A += X;
 		continue;
-	case BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K:
+	case BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K: /* BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K */
 		A += f_k;
 		continue;
-	case BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X:
+	case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X: /* BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X */
 		A -= X;
 		continue;
-	case BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K:
+	case BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K: /* BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K */
 		A -= f_k;
 		continue;

If compilers can generate better code for continuous case values
than discontinuous case values, then keeping BPF_S_* makes sense.

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Eric Dumazet]

Le mercredi 17 novembre 2010 à 15:54 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> >
> > Please repost it when Changli patch is accepted by David
> > (if accepted :)), to get rid of the "+ 1"
> >
> 
> Oh. No need, if David accepts this patch first, otherwise, there is
> just some offset, and patch can handle it. :)
> 
> 


I was speaking of all the "+ 1" in codes[] init

+       static const u8 codes[] = {
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_MUL|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_MUL_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_AND|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_AND_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_K]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_OR|BPF_X]   = BPF_S_ALU_OR_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_LSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_LSH_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_K + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_RSH|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_ALU_RSH_X + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_NEG]        = BPF_S_ALU_NEG + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_W_ABS + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_H_ABS + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_ABS]   = BPF_S_LD_B_ABS + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]   = BPF_S_LD_W_LEN + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_W|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_W_IND + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_H|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_H_IND + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_B|BPF_IND]   = BPF_S_LD_B_IND + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_IMM]         = BPF_S_LD_IMM + 1,
+               [BPF_LDX|BPF_W|BPF_LEN]  = BPF_S_LDX_W_LEN + 1,
+               [BPF_LDX|BPF_B|BPF_MSH]  = BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH + 1,
+               [BPF_LDX|BPF_IMM]        = BPF_S_LDX_IMM + 1,
+               [BPF_MISC|BPF_TAX]       = BPF_S_MISC_TAX + 1,
+               [BPF_MISC|BPF_TXA]       = BPF_S_MISC_TXA + 1,
+               [BPF_RET|BPF_K]          = BPF_S_RET_K + 1,
+               [BPF_RET|BPF_A]          = BPF_S_RET_A + 1,
+               [BPF_ALU|BPF_DIV|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_ALU_DIV_K + 1,
+               [BPF_LD|BPF_MEM]         = BPF_S_LD_MEM + 1,
+               [BPF_LDX|BPF_MEM]        = BPF_S_LDX_MEM + 1,
+               [BPF_ST]                 = BPF_S_ST + 1,
+               [BPF_STX]                = BPF_S_STX + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JA]         = BPF_S_JMP_JA + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_K + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JEQ|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JEQ_X + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_K + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGE|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGE_X + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_K]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_K + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JGT|BPF_X]  = BPF_S_JMP_JGT_X + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_K] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_K + 1,
+               [BPF_JMP|BPF_JSET|BPF_X] = BPF_S_JMP_JSET_X + 1,
+       };

This was needed because the translated instructions were begining from 0

If we change them to start at offset 1, we can avoid all the "+ 1" :

and avoid the bit ugly :

if (!code--) ...

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[Hagen Paul Pfeifer]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:06:10 +0900, Tetsuo Handawrote:



> If compilers can generate better code for continuous case values

> than discontinuous case values, then keeping BPF_S_* makes sense.



Yes, this is crucial. A compiler cannot generate a jump table of O(1) for

dense labels. The BPF_S_* translation was done to convert to a dense label

construct. So this "optimization" is a no-go.



Look at the log and read my comment for a detailed explanation.



Anyway: "code--" increments the _copied_ value, not the value in the

evaluated opcode itself. I will validate the patch!



Hagen

Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.

[David Miller]

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:19:51 +0900

> Subject: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
> 
> Since repeating u16 value to u8 value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch introduces u16 to u8 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 29% on x86.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

Applied, thank you.