bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Account for BPF_FETCH in insn_has_def32()
@ 2021-02-24 14:18 Ilya Leoshkevich
  2021-02-26 19:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Leoshkevich @ 2021-02-24 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann
  Cc: bpf, Heiko Carstens, Vasily Gorbik, Brendan Jackman, Ilya Leoshkevich

insn_has_def32() returns false for 32-bit BPF_FETCH insns. This makes
adjust_insn_aux_data() incorrectly set zext_dst, as can be seen in [1].
This happens because insn_no_def() does not know about BPF_FETCH
variants of BPF_STX.

Fix in two steps.

First, replace insn_no_def() with insn_def_regno(), which returns which
the register an insn defines. Normally insn_no_def() calls are followed
by insn->dst_reg uses; replace those with insn_def_regno() return
value.

Second, adjust the BPF_STX special case in is_reg64() to deal with
queries made from opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(), where the state
information is no longer available. Add a comment, since the purpose
of this special case is not clear at the first glance.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210223150845.1857620-1-jackmanb@google.com/

Fixes: 37086bfdc737 ("bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH")
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1dda9d81f12c..f4df805d6bfd 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1703,7 +1703,10 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	}
 
 	if (class == BPF_STX) {
-		if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
+		/* BPF_STX (including atomic variants) has multiple source
+		 * operands, one of which is a ptr. Check whether the caller is
+		 * asking about it. */
+		if (t == SRC_OP && reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
 			return true;
 		return BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW;
 	}
@@ -1735,22 +1738,33 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	return true;
 }
 
-/* Return TRUE if INSN doesn't have explicit value define. */
-static bool insn_no_def(struct bpf_insn *insn)
+/* Return the regno defined by the insn, or -1. */
+static int insn_def_regno(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
 {
-	u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
-
-	return (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32 ||
-		class == BPF_STX || class == BPF_ST);
+	switch (BPF_CLASS(insn->code)) {
+	case BPF_JMP:
+	case BPF_JMP32:
+	case BPF_ST:
+		return -1;
+	case BPF_STX:
+		return (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC &&
+			(insn->imm & BPF_FETCH)) ?
+		       (insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0 : insn->src_reg) :
+		       -1;
+	default:
+		return insn->dst_reg;
+	}
 }
 
 /* Return TRUE if INSN has defined any 32-bit value explicitly. */
 static bool insn_has_def32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 {
-	if (insn_no_def(insn))
+	int dst_reg = insn_def_regno(insn);
+
+	if (dst_reg == -1)
 		return false;
 
-	return !is_reg64(env, insn, insn->dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP);
+	return !is_reg64(env, insn, dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP);
 }
 
 static void mark_insn_zext(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
@@ -11006,9 +11020,10 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
 		int adj_idx = i + delta;
 		struct bpf_insn insn;
-		u8 load_reg;
+		int load_reg;
 
 		insn = insns[adj_idx];
+		load_reg = insn_def_regno(&insn);
 		if (!aux[adj_idx].zext_dst) {
 			u8 code, class;
 			u32 imm_rnd;
@@ -11018,14 +11033,14 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 
 			code = insn.code;
 			class = BPF_CLASS(code);
-			if (insn_no_def(&insn))
+			if (load_reg == -1)
 				continue;
 
 			/* NOTE: arg "reg" (the fourth one) is only used for
-			 *       BPF_STX which has been ruled out in above
-			 *       check, it is safe to pass NULL here.
+			 *       BPF_STX + SRC_OP, so it is safe to pass NULL
+			 *       here.
 			 */
-			if (is_reg64(env, &insn, insn.dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP)) {
+			if (is_reg64(env, &insn, load_reg, NULL, DST_OP)) {
 				if (class == BPF_LD &&
 				    BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_IMM)
 					i++;
@@ -11040,7 +11055,7 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			imm_rnd = get_random_int();
 			rnd_hi32_patch[0] = insn;
 			rnd_hi32_patch[1].imm = imm_rnd;
-			rnd_hi32_patch[3].dst_reg = insn.dst_reg;
+			rnd_hi32_patch[3].dst_reg = load_reg;
 			patch = rnd_hi32_patch;
 			patch_len = 4;
 			goto apply_patch_buffer;
@@ -11049,23 +11064,9 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		if (!bpf_jit_needs_zext())
 			continue;
 
-		/* zext_dst means that we want to zero-extend whatever register
-		 * the insn defines, which is dst_reg most of the time, with
-		 * the notable exception of BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC + BPF_FETCH.
-		 */
-		if (BPF_CLASS(insn.code) == BPF_STX &&
-		    BPF_MODE(insn.code) == BPF_ATOMIC) {
-			/* BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC insns without BPF_FETCH do not
-			 * define any registers, therefore zext_dst cannot be
-			 * set.
-			 */
-			if (WARN_ON(!(insn.imm & BPF_FETCH)))
-				return -EINVAL;
-			load_reg = insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0
-							   : insn.src_reg;
-		} else {
-			load_reg = insn.dst_reg;
-		}
+		/* If no register is defined, zext_dst cannot be set. */
+		if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1))
+			return -EINVAL;
 
 		zext_patch[0] = insn;
 		zext_patch[1].dst_reg = load_reg;
-- 
2.29.2


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Account for BPF_FETCH in insn_has_def32()
  2021-02-24 14:18 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Account for BPF_FETCH in insn_has_def32() Ilya Leoshkevich
@ 2021-02-26 19:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2021-02-26 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ilya Leoshkevich
  Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, bpf, Heiko Carstens,
	Vasily Gorbik, Brendan Jackman

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> insn_has_def32() returns false for 32-bit BPF_FETCH insns. This makes
> adjust_insn_aux_data() incorrectly set zext_dst, as can be seen in [1].
> This happens because insn_no_def() does not know about BPF_FETCH
> variants of BPF_STX.
> 
> Fix in two steps.
> 
> First, replace insn_no_def() with insn_def_regno(), which returns which
> the register an insn defines. Normally insn_no_def() calls are followed
> by insn->dst_reg uses; replace those with insn_def_regno() return
> value.
> 
> Second, adjust the BPF_STX special case in is_reg64() to deal with
> queries made from opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(), where the state
> information is no longer available. Add a comment, since the purpose
> of this special case is not clear at the first glance.
Thanks for the fix.  A few nits.

> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210223150845.1857620-1-jackmanb@google.com/
> 
> Fixes: 37086bfdc737 ("bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH")
Is it fixing this instead?
5ffa25502b5a ("bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg")

and bpf instead of bpf-next?

> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 1dda9d81f12c..f4df805d6bfd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1703,7 +1703,10 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (class == BPF_STX) {
> -		if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
> +		/* BPF_STX (including atomic variants) has multiple source
> +		 * operands, one of which is a ptr. Check whether the caller is
> +		 * asking about it. */
nit. A newline for "*/".

> +		if (t == SRC_OP && reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
>  			return true;
>  		return BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW;
>  	}
> @@ -1735,22 +1738,33 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -/* Return TRUE if INSN doesn't have explicit value define. */
> -static bool insn_no_def(struct bpf_insn *insn)
> +/* Return the regno defined by the insn, or -1. */
> +static int insn_def_regno(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
>  {
> -	u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
> -
> -	return (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32 ||
> -		class == BPF_STX || class == BPF_ST);
> +	switch (BPF_CLASS(insn->code)) {
> +	case BPF_JMP:
> +	case BPF_JMP32:
> +	case BPF_ST:
> +		return -1;
> +	case BPF_STX:
> +		return (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC &&
> +			(insn->imm & BPF_FETCH)) ?
> +		       (insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0 : insn->src_reg) :
> +		       -1;
A bit hard to read with multiple "?" stacking on each other.
How about using a more verbose "if else" here?

> +	default:
> +		return insn->dst_reg;
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  /* Return TRUE if INSN has defined any 32-bit value explicitly. */
>  static bool insn_has_def32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
>  {
> -	if (insn_no_def(insn))
> +	int dst_reg = insn_def_regno(insn);
> +
> +	if (dst_reg == -1)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	return !is_reg64(env, insn, insn->dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP);
> +	return !is_reg64(env, insn, dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP);
>  }
>  
>  static void mark_insn_zext(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> @@ -11006,9 +11020,10 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  	for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>  		int adj_idx = i + delta;
>  		struct bpf_insn insn;
> -		u8 load_reg;
> +		int load_reg;
>  
>  		insn = insns[adj_idx];
> +		load_reg = insn_def_regno(&insn);
>  		if (!aux[adj_idx].zext_dst) {
>  			u8 code, class;
>  			u32 imm_rnd;
> @@ -11018,14 +11033,14 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  
>  			code = insn.code;
>  			class = BPF_CLASS(code);
> -			if (insn_no_def(&insn))
> +			if (load_reg == -1)
>  				continue;
>  
>  			/* NOTE: arg "reg" (the fourth one) is only used for
> -			 *       BPF_STX which has been ruled out in above
> -			 *       check, it is safe to pass NULL here.
> +			 *       BPF_STX + SRC_OP, so it is safe to pass NULL
> +			 *       here.
>  			 */
> -			if (is_reg64(env, &insn, insn.dst_reg, NULL, DST_OP)) {
> +			if (is_reg64(env, &insn, load_reg, NULL, DST_OP)) {
>  				if (class == BPF_LD &&
>  				    BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_IMM)
>  					i++;
> @@ -11040,7 +11055,7 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  			imm_rnd = get_random_int();
>  			rnd_hi32_patch[0] = insn;
>  			rnd_hi32_patch[1].imm = imm_rnd;
> -			rnd_hi32_patch[3].dst_reg = insn.dst_reg;
> +			rnd_hi32_patch[3].dst_reg = load_reg;
>  			patch = rnd_hi32_patch;
>  			patch_len = 4;
>  			goto apply_patch_buffer;
> @@ -11049,23 +11064,9 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  		if (!bpf_jit_needs_zext())
>  			continue;
>  
> -		/* zext_dst means that we want to zero-extend whatever register
> -		 * the insn defines, which is dst_reg most of the time, with
> -		 * the notable exception of BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC + BPF_FETCH.
> -		 */
> -		if (BPF_CLASS(insn.code) == BPF_STX &&
> -		    BPF_MODE(insn.code) == BPF_ATOMIC) {
> -			/* BPF_STX + BPF_ATOMIC insns without BPF_FETCH do not
> -			 * define any registers, therefore zext_dst cannot be
> -			 * set.
> -			 */
> -			if (WARN_ON(!(insn.imm & BPF_FETCH)))
> -				return -EINVAL;
> -			load_reg = insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0
> -							   : insn.src_reg;
> -		} else {
> -			load_reg = insn.dst_reg;
> -		}
> +		/* If no register is defined, zext_dst cannot be set. */
> +		if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1))
May be a WARN_ON_ONCE and then followed by verbose(env, ...).

> +			return -EINVAL;
-EFAULT instead.  It is what most other places return also during verifier
internal error.  There are a few places return -EINVAL and probably we should
change them in the future.

>  
>  		zext_patch[0] = insn;
>  		zext_patch[1].dst_reg = load_reg;
> -- 
> 2.29.2
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-26 19:27 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-24 14:18 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Account for BPF_FETCH in insn_has_def32() Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-02-26 19:25 ` Martin KaFai Lau

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).