All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v10 15/24] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 07:26:05 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221118015614.2013203-16-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221118015614.2013203-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Pointer increment on seeing PTR_MAYBE_NULL is already protected against,
hence make an exception for PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC while still
keeping the warning for other unintended cases that might creep in.

bpf_list_pop_{front,_back} helpers planned to be introduced in next
commit will return a MEM_ALLOC register with incremented offset pointing
to bpf_list_node field. The user is supposed to then obtain the pointer
to the entry using container_of after NULL checking it. The current
restrictions trigger a warning when doing the NULL checking. Revisiting
the reason, it is meant as an assertion which seems to actually work and
catch the bad case.

Hence, under no other circumstances can reg->off be non-zero for a
register that has the PTR_MAYBE_NULL type flag set.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 75aa52b27e8b..84798773b592 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -10791,16 +10791,19 @@ static void mark_ptr_or_null_reg(struct bpf_func_state *state,
 {
 	if (type_may_be_null(reg->type) && reg->id == id &&
 	    !WARN_ON_ONCE(!reg->id)) {
-		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(reg->smin_value || reg->smax_value ||
-				 !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, 0) ||
-				 reg->off)) {
-			/* Old offset (both fixed and variable parts) should
-			 * have been known-zero, because we don't allow pointer
-			 * arithmetic on pointers that might be NULL. If we
-			 * see this happening, don't convert the register.
-			 */
+		/* Old offset (both fixed and variable parts) should have been
+		 * known-zero, because we don't allow pointer arithmetic on
+		 * pointers that might be NULL. If we see this happening, don't
+		 * convert the register.
+		 *
+		 * But in some cases, some helpers that return local kptrs
+		 * advance offset for the returned pointer. In those cases, it
+		 * is fine to expect to see reg->off.
+		 */
+		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(reg->smin_value || reg->smax_value || !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, 0)))
+			return;
+		if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | PTR_MAYBE_NULL) && WARN_ON_ONCE(reg->off))
 			return;
-		}
 		if (is_null) {
 			reg->type = SCALAR_VALUE;
 			/* We don't need id and ref_obj_id from this point
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-18  1:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-18  1:55 [PATCH bpf-next v10 00/24] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 01/24] bpf: Fix early return in map_check_btf Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 02/24] bpf: Do btf_record_free outside map_free callback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 03/24] bpf: Free inner_map_meta when btf_record_dup fails Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 04/24] bpf: Populate field_offs for inner_map_meta Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 05/24] bpf: Introduce allocated objects support Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 06/24] bpf: Recognize lock and list fields in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 07/24] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 08/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in allocated objects Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 09/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 10/24] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 11/24] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  3:34   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 10:37     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18 18:02       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 19:00         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18 18:08       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18 19:40   ` David Vernet
2022-11-20 19:25     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 12/24] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 13/24] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 14/24] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 16/24] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-21 18:34   ` Nathan Chancellor
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 17/24] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 18/24] bpf: Add comments for map BTF matching requirement for bpf_list_head Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 19/24] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 20/24] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 21/24] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 22/24] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-10-11 22:44   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-11 23:02     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2023-10-20  0:15       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-20 14:51         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 23/24] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-18  1:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 24/24] selftests/bpf: Temporarily disable linked list tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-22 17:24   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-18  3:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v10 00/24] Allocated objects, BPF linked lists patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=20221118015614.2013203-16-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.