From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: 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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:20:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200326062001.3j6yqyu7jne4gtfl@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158507153582.15666.3091405867682349273.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower>
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
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.
The rest is awesome.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 6:20 UTC|newest]
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 [this message]
2020-03-26 15:18 ` John Fastabend
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=20200326062001.3j6yqyu7jne4gtfl@ast-mbp \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.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
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).