From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Cc: "bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: track contents of read-only maps as scalars
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:49:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzaLHY9MHbp27VxvVZcKWvbO43F2n6frKi_8kgqCXMDKMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191008215321.hrlrbgsdifnziji6@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:53 PM Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:45:47PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Maps that are read-only both from BPF program side and user space side
> > have their contents constant, so verifier can track referenced values
> > precisely and use that knowledge for dead code elimination, branch
> > pruning, etc. This patch teaches BPF verifier how to do this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index ffc3e53f5300..1e4e4bd64ca5 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -2739,6 +2739,42 @@ static void coerce_reg_to_size(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size)
> > reg->smax_value = reg->umax_value;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool bpf_map_is_rdonly(const struct bpf_map *map)
> > +{
> > + return (map->map_flags & BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG) &&
> > + ((map->map_flags & BPF_F_RDONLY) || map->frozen);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int bpf_map_direct_read(struct bpf_map *map, int off, int size, u64 *val)
> > +{
> > + void *ptr;
> > + u64 addr;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = map->ops->map_direct_value_addr(map, &addr, off + size);
> Should it be "off" instead of "off + size"?
From array_map_direct_value_addr() code, offset is used only to check
that access is happening within array value bounds. It's not used to
calculate returned pointer.
But now re-reading its code again, I think this check is wrong:
if (off >= map->value_size)
break;
It has to be (off > map->value_size). But it seems like this whole
interface is counter-intuitive.
I'm wondering if Daniel can clarify the intent behind this particular behavior.
For now the easiest fix is to pass (off + size - 1). But maybe we
should change the contract to be something like
int map_direct_value_addr(const struct bpf_map *map, u64 off, int
size, void *ptr)
This then can validate that entire access in the range of [off, off +
size) is acceptable to a map, and then return void * pointer according
to given off. Thoughts?
>
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > + ptr = (void *)addr + off;
> > +
> > + switch (size) {
> > + case sizeof(u8):
> > + *val = (u64)*(u8 *)ptr;
> > + break;
> > + case sizeof(u16):
> > + *val = (u64)*(u16 *)ptr;
> > + break;
> > + case sizeof(u32):
> > + *val = (u64)*(u32 *)ptr;
> > + break;
> > + case sizeof(u64):
> > + *val = *(u64 *)ptr;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > /* check whether memory at (regno + off) is accessible for t = (read | write)
> > * if t==write, value_regno is a register which value is stored into memory
> > * if t==read, value_regno is a register which will receive the value from memory
> > @@ -2776,9 +2812,27 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > err = check_map_access(env, regno, off, size, false);
> > - if (!err && t == BPF_READ && value_regno >= 0)
> > - mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, value_regno);
> > + if (!err && t == BPF_READ && value_regno >= 0) {
> > + struct bpf_map *map = reg->map_ptr;
> > +
> > + /* if map is read-only, track its contents as scalars */
> > + if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) &&
> > + bpf_map_is_rdonly(map) &&
> > + map->ops->map_direct_value_addr) {
> > + int map_off = off + reg->var_off.value;
> > + u64 val = 0;
> >
> > + err = bpf_map_direct_read(map, map_off, size,
> > + &val);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + regs[value_regno].type = SCALAR_VALUE;
> > + __mark_reg_known(®s[value_regno], val);
> > + } else {
> > + mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, value_regno);
> > + }
> > + }
> > } else if (reg->type == PTR_TO_CTX) {
> > enum bpf_reg_type reg_type = SCALAR_VALUE;
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-08 23:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-08 19:45 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Track read-only map contents as known scalars in BPF verifiers Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-08 19:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: track contents of read-only maps as scalars Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-08 21:29 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-10-08 23:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-08 21:53 ` Martin Lau
2019-10-08 23:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2019-10-09 0:34 ` Martin Lau
2019-10-09 2:48 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-08 19:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add read-only map values propagation tests Andrii Nakryiko
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=CAEf4BzaLHY9MHbp27VxvVZcKWvbO43F2n6frKi_8kgqCXMDKMg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@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).