bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	kernel-team@fb.com, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix a verifier issue when assigning 32bit reg states to 64bit ones
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:36:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200528203618.gsk6utptz5gls2di@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200528165043.1568695-1-yhs@fb.com>

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:50:43AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> With the latest trunk llvm (llvm 11), I hit a verifier issue for
> test_prog subtest test_verif_scale1.
> 
> The following simplified example illustrate the issue:
>     w9 = 0  /* R9_w=inv0 */
>     r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80)  /* __sk_buff->data_end */
>     r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76)  /* __sk_buff->data */
>     ......
>     w2 = w9 /* R2_w=inv0 */
>     r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>     r6 += r2 /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
>     r3 = r6 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
>     r3 += 14 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
>     if r3 > r8 goto end
>     r5 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0) /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
>        <== error here: R6 invalid mem access 'inv'
>     ...
>   end:
> 
> In real test_verif_scale1 code, "w9 = 0" and "w2 = w9" are in
> different basic blocks.
> 
> In the above, after "r6 += r2", r6 becomes a scalar, which eventually
> caused the memory access error. The correct register state should be
> a pkt pointer.
> 
> The inprecise register state starts at "w2 = w9".
> The 32bit register w9 is 0, in __reg_assign_32_into_64(),
> the 64bit reg->smax_value is assigned to be U32_MAX.
> The 64bit reg->smin_value is 0 and the 64bit register
> itself remains constant based on reg->var_off.
> 
> In adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the verifier checks for a known constant,
> smin_val must be equal to smax_val. Since they are not equal,
> the verifier decides r6 is a unknown scalar, which caused later failure.
> 
> The llvm10 does not have this issue as it generates different code:
>     w9 = 0  /* R9_w=inv0 */
>     r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80)  /* __sk_buff->data_end */
>     r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76)  /* __sk_buff->data */
>     ......
>     r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>     r6 += r9 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>     r3 = r6 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
>     r3 += 14 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0,imm=0) */
>     if r3 > r8 goto end
>     ...
> 
> To fix the issue, if 32bit register is a const 0,
> then just assign max vaue 0 to 64bit register smax_value as well.
> 
> Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 8d7ee40e2748..5123ce54695f 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1174,6 +1174,9 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
>  		reg->smin_value = 0;
>  	if (reg->s32_max_value > 0)
>  		reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
> +	else if (reg->s32_max_value == 0 && reg->s32_min_value == 0 &&
> +		 tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
> +		reg->smax_value = 0; /* const 0 */
>  	else
>  		reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;

wouldn't this be a more general fix ?

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 01c7d3634151..83450d5d24ab 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1217,11 +1217,11 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
         * but must be positive otherwise set to worse case bounds
         * and refine later from tnum.
         */
-       if (reg->s32_min_value > 0)
+       if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0)
                reg->smin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
        else
                reg->smin_value = 0;
-       if (reg->s32_max_value > 0)
+       if (reg->s32_max_value >= 0)
                reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
        else
                reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-28 20:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-28 16:50 [PATCH bpf 0/2] " Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 16:50 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] " Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 20:36   ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-05-28 21:22     ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 21:30   ` John Fastabend
2020-05-28 21:58     ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-28 16:50 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] tools/bpf: add a verifier test for " Yonghong Song

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=20200528203618.gsk6utptz5gls2di@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix a verifier issue when assigning 32bit reg states to 64bit ones' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).