summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2024-02-22 08:54:47 -0800
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2024-03-05 16:15:57 -0800
commit399eca1bd4fc14645dcdf19ee10adf5cde85aecf (patch)
tree9679deaf78e877789d754ee7f82f9d1b874e64fa
parent685f7d531264599b3f167f1e94bbd22f120e5fab (diff)
parent5c2bc5e2f81d3344095ae241032dde20a4ea2b48 (diff)
Merge branch 'check-bpf_func_state-callback_depth-when-pruning-states'
Eduard Zingerman says: ==================== check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states This patch-set fixes bug in states pruning logic hit in mailing list discussion [0]. The details of the fix are in patch #1. The main idea for the fix belongs to Yonghong Song, mine contribution is merely in review and test cases. There are some changes in verification performance: File Program Insns (DIFF) States (DIFF) ------------------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +15 (+0.42%) +0 (+0.00%) strobemeta_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +857 (+37.95%) +60 (+38.96%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_tc +2892 (+30.39%) +109 (+36.33%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_xdp +2892 (+30.01%) +109 (+36.09%) (when tested on a subset of selftests identified by selftests/bpf/veristat.cfg and Cilium bpf object files from [4]) Changelog: v2 [2] -> v3: - fixes for verifier.c commit message as suggested by Yonghong; - patch-set re-rerouted to 'bpf' tree as suggested in [2]; - patch for test_tcp_custom_syncookie is sent separately to 'bpf-next' [3]. - veristat results updated using 'bpf' tree as baseline and clang 16. v1 [1] -> v2: - patch #2 commit message updated to better reflect verifier behavior with regards to checkpoints tree (suggested by Yonghong); - veristat results added (suggested by Andrii). [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/ [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240212143832.28838-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240216150334.31937-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240222150300.14909-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/ [4] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium ==================== Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240222154121.6991-1-eddyz87@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
-rw-r--r--kernel/bpf/verifier.c3
-rw-r--r--tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c70
2 files changed, 73 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b263f093ee76..ddea9567f755 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16602,6 +16602,9 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat
{
int i;
+ if (old->callback_depth > cur->callback_depth)
+ return false;
+
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
if (!regsafe(env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i],
&env->idmap_scratch, exact))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
index 5905e036e0ea..a955a6358206 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
@@ -239,4 +239,74 @@ int bpf_loop_iter_limit_nested(void *unused)
return 1000 * a + b + c;
}
+struct iter_limit_bug_ctx {
+ __u64 a;
+ __u64 b;
+ __u64 c;
+};
+
+static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb(void)
+{
+ /* This is the same as C code below, but written
+ * in assembly to control which branches are fall-through.
+ *
+ * switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
+ * case 1: ctx->a = 42; break;
+ * case 2: ctx->b = 42; break;
+ * default: ctx->c = 42; break;
+ * }
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r9 = r2;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r2 = 42;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "if r1 == 0x1 goto 1f;"
+ "if r1 == 0x2 goto 2f;"
+ "*(u64 *)(r9 + 16) = r2;"
+ "exit;"
+ "1: *(u64 *)(r9 + 0) = r2;"
+ "exit;"
+ "2: *(u64 *)(r9 + 8) = r2;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__failure
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
+
+ bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0);
+
+ /* This is the same as C code below,
+ * written in assembly to guarantee checks order.
+ *
+ * if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
+ * asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1");
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_a];"
+ "if r1 != 42 goto 1f;"
+ "r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_b];"
+ "if r1 != 42 goto 1f;"
+ "r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_c];"
+ "if r1 != 7 goto 1f;"
+ "r1 /= 0;"
+ "1:"
+ :
+ : [ctx_a]"m"(ctx.a),
+ [ctx_b]"m"(ctx.b),
+ [ctx_c]"m"(ctx.c)
+ : "r1"
+ );
+ return 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";