bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Support for pointers beyond pkt_end.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:59:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201112235934.gkydiegea4nhin3x@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5fad89fb649af_2a612088e@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:16:11AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> > 
> > This patch adds the verifier support to recognize inlined branch conditions.
> > The LLVM knows that the branch evaluates to the same value, but the verifier
> > couldn't track it. Hence causing valid programs to be rejected.
> > The potential LLVM workaround: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87428
> > can have undesired side effects, since LLVM doesn't know that
> > skb->data/data_end are being compared. LLVM has to introduce extra boolean
> > variable and use inline_asm trick to force easier for the verifier assembly.
> > 
> > Instead teach the verifier to recognize that
> > r1 = skb->data;
> > r1 += 10;
> > r2 = skb->data_end;
> > if (r1 > r2) {
> >   here r1 points beyond packet_end and
> >   subsequent
> >   if (r1 > r2) // always evaluates to "true".
> > }
> > 
> > Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/bpf_verifier.h |   2 +-
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> Thanks, we can remove another set of inline asm logic.

Awesome! Please contribute your C examples to selftests when possible.

> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>  
> >  	if (pred >= 0) {
> > @@ -7517,7 +7601,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> >  		 */
> >  		if (!__is_pointer_value(false, dst_reg))
> >  			err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->dst_reg);
> > -		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err)
> > +		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err &&
> > +		    !__is_pointer_value(false, src_reg))
> 
> This could have been more specific with !type_is_pkt_pointer() correct? I
> think its fine as is though.

I actually meant to use __is_pointer_value() here for two reasons:
1. to match dst_reg check just few lines above.
2. mark_chain_precision() is for scalars only. If in the future
  is_*_branch_taken() will support other kinds of pointers the more
  precise !type_is_pkt_pointer() check would need to be modified.
  That would be unnecessary code churn.

Thanks for the review!

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-12 23:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-11  3:12 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Pointers beyond packet end Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-11  3:12 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Support for pointers beyond pkt_end Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-12 19:16   ` John Fastabend
2020-11-12 23:56     ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-11-13  0:09       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-13  0:50         ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-11-12 23:59     ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-11-13  0:35       ` John Fastabend
2020-11-11  3:12 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add skb_pkt_end test Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-12 19:19   ` John Fastabend
2020-11-11  3:12 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add asm tests for pkt vs pkt_end comparison Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-12 19:24   ` John Fastabend
2021-01-20 20:51   ` Jiri Olsa
2020-11-13  0:50 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Pointers beyond packet end 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=20201112235934.gkydiegea4nhin3x@ast-mbp \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.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 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).