BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: ecree@solarflare.com, yhs@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH 04/10] bpf: verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:18:09 -0700
Message-ID: <5e7cc7b15c012_65132acbbe7fc5c4e9@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200326062001.3j6yqyu7jne4gtfl@ast-mbp>

Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:38:56AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> > -static void __reg_bound_offset32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
> > +static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
> >  {
> > -	u64 mask = 0xffffFFFF;
> > -	struct tnum range = tnum_range(reg->umin_value & mask,
> > -				       reg->umax_value & mask);
> > -	struct tnum lo32 = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, 4);
> > -	struct tnum hi32 = tnum_lshift(tnum_rshift(reg->var_off, 32), 32);
> > +	/* special case when 64-bit register has upper 32-bit register
> > +	 * zeroed. Typically happens after zext or <<32, >>32 sequence
> > +	 * allowing us to use 32-bit bounds directly,
> > +	 */
> > +	if (tnum_equals_const(tnum_clear_subreg(reg->var_off), 0)) {
> > +		reg->umin_value = reg->u32_min_value;
> > +		reg->umax_value = reg->u32_max_value;
> > +		reg->smin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
> > +		reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
> 
> Looks like above will not be correct for negative s32_min/max.
> When upper 32-bit are cleared and we're processing jmp32
> we cannot set smax_value to s32_max_value.
> Consider if (w0 s< -5)
> s32_max_value == -5
> which is 0xfffffffb
> but upper 32 are zeros so smax_value should be (u64)0xfffffffb
> and not (s64)-5

Right, good catch. I'll use below logic here as well.

> 
> We can be fancy and precise with this logic, but I would just use similar
> approach from zext_32_to_64() where the following:
> +       if (reg->s32_min_value > 0)
> +               reg->smin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
> +       else
> +               reg->smin_value = 0;
> +       if (reg->s32_max_value > 0)
> +               reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
> +       else
> +               reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
> should work for this case too ?
> 
> > +	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
> > +		pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, insn->imm, opcode, is_jmp32);
> > +	} else if (src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && is_jmp32 && tnum_is_const(tnum_subreg(src_reg->var_off))) {
> > +		pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, tnum_subreg(src_reg->var_off).value, opcode, is_jmp32);
> > +	} else if (src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && !is_jmp32 && tnum_is_const(src_reg->var_off)) {
> > +		pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, src_reg->var_off.value, opcode, is_jmp32);
> > +	}
> 
> pls wrap these lines. Way above normal.

+1

> 
> The rest is awesome.

Thanks.

  reply index

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-24 17:37 [bpf-next PATCH 00/10] ALU32 bounds tracking support John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:37 ` [bpf-next PATCH 01/10] bpf: verifier, do_refine_retval_range may clamp umin to 0 incorrectly John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:38 ` [bpf-next PATCH 02/10] bpf: verifer, refactor adjust_scalar_min_max_vals John Fastabend
2020-03-26  6:10   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-24 17:38 ` [bpf-next PATCH 03/10] bpf: verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds() John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:38 ` [bpf-next PATCH 04/10] bpf: verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking John Fastabend
2020-03-26  6:20   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-26 15:18     ` John Fastabend [this message]
2020-03-24 17:39 ` [bpf-next PATCH 05/10] bpf: verifier, return value is an int in do_refine_retval_range John Fastabend
2020-03-26  6:23   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-26 15:52     ` John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:39 ` [bpf-next PATCH 06/10] bpf: test_progs, add test to catch retval refine error handling John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:39 ` [bpf-next PATCH 07/10] bpf: test_verifier, bpf_get_stack return value add <0 John Fastabend
2020-03-26  6:33   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-26 15:48     ` John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:40 ` [bpf-next PATCH 08/10] bpf: test_verifier, #70 error message updates for 32-bit right shift John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:40 ` [bpf-next PATCH 09/10] bpf: test_verifier, #65 error message updates for trunc of boundary-cross John Fastabend
2020-03-24 17:40 ` [bpf-next PATCH 10/10] bpf: test_verifier, add alu32 bounds tracking tests John Fastabend
2020-03-26  6:34   ` Alexei Starovoitov

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=5e7cc7b15c012_65132acbbe7fc5c4e9@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    /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

BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0 bpf/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 bpf bpf/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf \
		bpf@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index bpf

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.bpf


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git