From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E5CC10DCE for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 00:10:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E751206D7 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 00:10:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Y6VrFYfZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726271AbgCGAK7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2020 19:10:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com ([209.85.216.66]:52354 "EHLO mail-pj1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726269AbgCGAK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2020 19:10:58 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id lt1so1725712pjb.2; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 16:10:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:from:to:cc:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ok97xfNCpPyxtRdOAL3kvQ0uWdMsHcaVTISz7N73PmE=; b=Y6VrFYfZDMjXGKhcVvkMG3W3fwInOMGS5q0vjtSIJ2r7t+RfU4Y9OWfFnziPg/J1DT VPaLPps5jsLW4QImkopZiv+X2oXQ6d8M+Y4YTPx3EGqpuPUhPIkvgqviGdmgrs59/hrZ ZhI8nJ1i+wQc0XIc9e+yhvz6E37EqOIPCQDLHK57LBfPhGzyBwxSLq8HNTWjtOfsPAkY W6MbodoEj9uYXxmwocZ29BHagVqOeZm/Kv43hlewG1NPPw4njMUMfplRm8vEizkzLeaE LTW9GwsaQB2ntgnjcc6DubcZZ1ZZWrFVWQzM72H1GJCyrGbUiePEdwFoxDg0tKO4TIKn 05dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:cc:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ok97xfNCpPyxtRdOAL3kvQ0uWdMsHcaVTISz7N73PmE=; b=hWxJHbAsUUjoFAmirxUpqzLJvT8QwTrab+D5qDtRO1WMDlmNHR9cOCWurmDgiS8gL7 +eqI7oUr8xM0XZ1TnRWuCyI2Fkh1RqUlCpEiLwkNSrCwcLKr8UEUuCKqYBUwCXpfbIWE SK+rq78X5izU6EsP0a90fGIxb6YPMie89+/lhneFzppAlfhaPBD93n3Sf8HN4N+e8nmN xpu+MRxRZ37DuTFGM9KSlxPFN4v0g0EtbBYc2YFFXCeaUfdCJVpBQUa3yXZGNN9cRmQW J3HM3b5FPzyMzvSyVlpovBu5GaWVAZz3Si09vobGXXKruOv1M1Kf0ZN79yWS2+FIkNMo NZ3A== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3RK0rnFBvSPNx7bDXTZBF/3yYuzhy3B+XExmXCOdHcVRSpqFiK DtaWHrw8IdQmlB4AC2KhEb8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsvJfrwCq0kh+rT0mTCIDbk7RGiwyJDWWvECoB+crJo5GKjFNQE8Xt+NXP16Vp04/GJHSzV2g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:17e3:: with SMTP id q90mr6399431pja.12.1583539856831; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 16:10:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.1.1] ([184.63.162.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 144sm39066311pfc.45.2020.03.06.16.10.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Mar 2020 16:10:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/4] bpf: verifer, refactor adjust_scalar_min_max_vals From: John Fastabend To: yhs@fb.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 00:10:43 +0000 Message-ID: <158353984308.3451.16378814995361489461.stgit@ubuntu3-kvm2> In-Reply-To: <158353965971.3451.14666851223845760316.stgit@ubuntu3-kvm2> References: <158353965971.3451.14666851223845760316.stgit@ubuntu3-kvm2> User-Agent: StGit/0.17.1-dirty MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org Pull per op ALU logic into individual functions. We are about to add u32 versions of each of these by pull them out the code gets a bit more readable here and nicer in the next patch. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend --- 0 files changed diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 1cc945daa9c8..9b9023075900 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4836,6 +4836,237 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return 0; } +static void scalar_min_max_add(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; + s64 smax_val = src_reg->smax_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + + if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || + signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) { + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + } else { + dst_reg->smin_value += smin_val; + dst_reg->smax_value += smax_val; + } + if (dst_reg->umin_value + umin_val < umin_val || + dst_reg->umax_value + umax_val < umax_val) { + dst_reg->umin_value = 0; + dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; + } else { + dst_reg->umin_value += umin_val; + dst_reg->umax_value += umax_val; + } + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg->var_off); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_sub(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; + s64 smax_val = src_reg->smax_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + + if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) || + signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) { + /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + } else { + dst_reg->smin_value -= smax_val; + dst_reg->smax_value -= smin_val; + } + if (dst_reg->umin_value < umax_val) { + /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ + dst_reg->umin_value = 0; + dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; + } else { + /* Cannot overflow (as long as bounds are consistent) */ + dst_reg->umin_value -= umax_val; + dst_reg->umax_value -= umin_val; + } + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sub(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg->var_off); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_mul(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_mul(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg->var_off); + if (smin_val < 0 || dst_reg->smin_value < 0) { + /* Ain't nobody got time to multiply that sign */ + __mark_reg_unbounded(dst_reg); + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + return; + } + /* Both values are positive, so we can work with unsigned and + * copy the result to signed (unless it exceeds S64_MAX). + */ + if (umax_val > U32_MAX || dst_reg->umax_value > U32_MAX) { + /* Potential overflow, we know nothing */ + __mark_reg_unbounded(dst_reg); + /* (except what we can learn from the var_off) */ + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + return; + } + dst_reg->umin_value *= umin_val; + dst_reg->umax_value *= umax_val; + if (dst_reg->umax_value > S64_MAX) { + /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + } else { + dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; + dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; + } +} + +static void scalar_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + + /* We get our minimum from the var_off, since that's inherently + * bitwise. Our maximum is the minimum of the operands' maxima. + */ + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_and(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg->var_off); + dst_reg->umin_value = dst_reg->var_off.value; + dst_reg->umax_value = min(dst_reg->umax_value, umax_val); + if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0 || smin_val < 0) { + /* Lose signed bounds when ANDing negative numbers, + * ain't nobody got time for that. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + } else { + /* ANDing two positives gives a positive, so safe to + * cast result into s64. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; + dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; + } + /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_or(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + + /* We get our maximum from the var_off, and our minimum is the + * maximum of the operands' minima + */ + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_or(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg->var_off); + dst_reg->umin_value = max(dst_reg->umin_value, umin_val); + dst_reg->umax_value = dst_reg->var_off.value | dst_reg->var_off.mask; + if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0 || smin_val < 0) { + /* Lose signed bounds when ORing negative numbers, + * ain't nobody got time for that. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + } else { + /* ORing two positives gives a positive, so safe to + * cast result into s64. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; + dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; + } + /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_lsh(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + + /* We lose all sign bit information (except what we can pick + * up from var_off) + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + /* If we might shift our top bit out, then we know nothing */ + if (dst_reg->umax_value > 1ULL << (63 - umax_val)) { + dst_reg->umin_value = 0; + dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; + } else { + dst_reg->umin_value <<= umin_val; + dst_reg->umax_value <<= umax_val; + } + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_lshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val); + /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_rsh(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg) +{ + u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value; + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + + /* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift. If the value in dst_reg might + * be negative, then either: + * 1) src_reg might be zero, so the sign bit of the result is + * unknown, so we lose our signed bounds + * 2) it's known negative, thus the unsigned bounds capture the + * signed bounds + * 3) the signed bounds cross zero, so they tell us nothing + * about the result + * If the value in dst_reg is known nonnegative, then again the + * unsigned bounts capture the signed bounds. + * Thus, in all cases it suffices to blow away our signed bounds + * and rely on inferring new ones from the unsigned bounds and + * var_off of the result. + */ + dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; + dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val); + dst_reg->umin_value >>= umax_val; + dst_reg->umax_value >>= umin_val; + /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); +} + +static void scalar_min_max_arsh(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg, + u64 insn_bitness) +{ + u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + + /* Upon reaching here, src_known is true and + * umax_val is equal to umin_val. + */ + if (insn_bitness == 32) { + dst_reg->smin_value = (u32)(((s32)dst_reg->smin_value) >> umin_val); + dst_reg->smax_value = (u32)(((s32)dst_reg->smax_value) >> umin_val); + } else { + dst_reg->smin_value >>= umin_val; + dst_reg->smax_value >>= umin_val; + } + + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_arshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val, + insn_bitness); + + /* blow away the dst_reg umin_value/umax_value and rely on + * dst_reg var_off to refine the result. + */ + dst_reg->umin_value = 0; + dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); +} + /* WARNING: This function does calculations on 64-bit values, but the actual * execution may occur on 32-bit values. Therefore, things like bitshifts * need extra checks in the 32-bit case. @@ -4892,23 +5123,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); return ret; } - if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || - signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) { - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } else { - dst_reg->smin_value += smin_val; - dst_reg->smax_value += smax_val; - } - if (dst_reg->umin_value + umin_val < umin_val || - dst_reg->umax_value + umax_val < umax_val) { - dst_reg->umin_value = 0; - dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; - } else { - dst_reg->umin_value += umin_val; - dst_reg->umax_value += umax_val; - } - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); + scalar_min_max_add(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_SUB: ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); @@ -4916,54 +5131,10 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); return ret; } - if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) || - signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) { - /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } else { - dst_reg->smin_value -= smax_val; - dst_reg->smax_value -= smin_val; - } - if (dst_reg->umin_value < umax_val) { - /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ - dst_reg->umin_value = 0; - dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; - } else { - /* Cannot overflow (as long as bounds are consistent) */ - dst_reg->umin_value -= umax_val; - dst_reg->umax_value -= umin_val; - } - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sub(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); + scalar_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_MUL: - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_mul(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); - if (smin_val < 0 || dst_reg->smin_value < 0) { - /* Ain't nobody got time to multiply that sign */ - __mark_reg_unbounded(dst_reg); - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - break; - } - /* Both values are positive, so we can work with unsigned and - * copy the result to signed (unless it exceeds S64_MAX). - */ - if (umax_val > U32_MAX || dst_reg->umax_value > U32_MAX) { - /* Potential overflow, we know nothing */ - __mark_reg_unbounded(dst_reg); - /* (except what we can learn from the var_off) */ - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); - break; - } - dst_reg->umin_value *= umin_val; - dst_reg->umax_value *= umax_val; - if (dst_reg->umax_value > S64_MAX) { - /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } else { - dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; - dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; - } + scalar_min_max_mul(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_AND: if (src_known && dst_known) { @@ -4971,27 +5142,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, src_reg.var_off.value); break; } - /* We get our minimum from the var_off, since that's inherently - * bitwise. Our maximum is the minimum of the operands' maxima. - */ - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_and(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); - dst_reg->umin_value = dst_reg->var_off.value; - dst_reg->umax_value = min(dst_reg->umax_value, umax_val); - if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0 || smin_val < 0) { - /* Lose signed bounds when ANDing negative numbers, - * ain't nobody got time for that. - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } else { - /* ANDing two positives gives a positive, so safe to - * cast result into s64. - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; - dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; - } - /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + scalar_min_max_and(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_OR: if (src_known && dst_known) { @@ -4999,28 +5150,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, src_reg.var_off.value); break; } - /* We get our maximum from the var_off, and our minimum is the - * maximum of the operands' minima - */ - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_or(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); - dst_reg->umin_value = max(dst_reg->umin_value, umin_val); - dst_reg->umax_value = dst_reg->var_off.value | - dst_reg->var_off.mask; - if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0 || smin_val < 0) { - /* Lose signed bounds when ORing negative numbers, - * ain't nobody got time for that. - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - } else { - /* ORing two positives gives a positive, so safe to - * cast result into s64. - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = dst_reg->umin_value; - dst_reg->smax_value = dst_reg->umax_value; - } - /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + scalar_min_max_or(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_LSH: if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { @@ -5030,22 +5160,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; } - /* We lose all sign bit information (except what we can pick - * up from var_off) - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - /* If we might shift our top bit out, then we know nothing */ - if (dst_reg->umax_value > 1ULL << (63 - umax_val)) { - dst_reg->umin_value = 0; - dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; - } else { - dst_reg->umin_value <<= umin_val; - dst_reg->umax_value <<= umax_val; - } - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_lshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val); - /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + scalar_min_max_lsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_RSH: if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { @@ -5055,27 +5170,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; } - /* BPF_RSH is an unsigned shift. If the value in dst_reg might - * be negative, then either: - * 1) src_reg might be zero, so the sign bit of the result is - * unknown, so we lose our signed bounds - * 2) it's known negative, thus the unsigned bounds capture the - * signed bounds - * 3) the signed bounds cross zero, so they tell us nothing - * about the result - * If the value in dst_reg is known nonnegative, then again the - * unsigned bounts capture the signed bounds. - * Thus, in all cases it suffices to blow away our signed bounds - * and rely on inferring new ones from the unsigned bounds and - * var_off of the result. - */ - dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; - dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val); - dst_reg->umin_value >>= umax_val; - dst_reg->umax_value >>= umin_val; - /* We may learn something more from the var_off */ - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + scalar_min_max_rsh(dst_reg, &src_reg); break; case BPF_ARSH: if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) { @@ -5085,27 +5180,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); break; } - - /* Upon reaching here, src_known is true and - * umax_val is equal to umin_val. - */ - if (insn_bitness == 32) { - dst_reg->smin_value = (u32)(((s32)dst_reg->smin_value) >> umin_val); - dst_reg->smax_value = (u32)(((s32)dst_reg->smax_value) >> umin_val); - } else { - dst_reg->smin_value >>= umin_val; - dst_reg->smax_value >>= umin_val; - } - - dst_reg->var_off = tnum_arshift(dst_reg->var_off, umin_val, - insn_bitness); - - /* blow away the dst_reg umin_value/umax_value and rely on - * dst_reg var_off to refine the result. - */ - dst_reg->umin_value = 0; - dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; - __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); + scalar_min_max_arsh(dst_reg, &src_reg, insn_bitness); break; default: mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);