@@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ int my_pid;
int arr[256];
int small_arr[16] SEC(".data.small_arr");
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
+ __uint(max_entries, 10);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, int);
+} amap SEC(".maps");
+
#ifdef REAL_TEST
#define MY_PID_GUARD() if (my_pid != (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32)) return 0
#else
@@ -716,4 +723,440 @@ int iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog(const void *ctx)
return 0;
}
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__failure
+__msg("R1 type=scalar expected=fp")
+__naked int delayed_read_mark(void)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to C program below.
+ * The call to bpf_iter_num_next() is reachable with r7 values &fp[-16] and 0xdead.
+ * State with r7=&fp[-16] is visited first and follows r6 != 42 ... continue branch.
+ * At this point iterator next() call is reached with r7 that has no read mark.
+ * Loop body with r7=0xdead would only be visited if verifier would decide to continue
+ * with second loop iteration. Absence of read mark on r7 might affect state
+ * equivalent logic used for iterator convergence tracking.
+ *
+ * r7 = &fp[-16]
+ * fp[-16] = 0
+ * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
+ * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10)
+ * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) {
+ * r6++
+ * if (r6 != 42) {
+ * r7 = 0xdead
+ * continue;
+ * }
+ * bpf_probe_read_user(r7, 8, 0xdeadbeef); // this is not safe
+ * }
+ * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
+ * return 0
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r7 = r10;"
+ "r7 += -16;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "*(u64 *)(r7 + 0) = r0;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "1:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto 2f;"
+ "r6 += 1;"
+ "if r6 != 42 goto 3f;"
+ "r7 = 0xdead;"
+ "goto 1b;"
+ "3:"
+ "r1 = r7;"
+ "r2 = 8;"
+ "r3 = 0xdeadbeef;"
+ "call %[bpf_probe_read_user];"
+ "goto 1b;"
+ "2:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_new),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_next),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy),
+ __imm(bpf_probe_read_user)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__failure
+__msg("math between fp pointer and register with unbounded")
+__naked int delayed_precision_mark(void)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to C program below.
+ * The test is similar to delayed_iter_mark but verifies that incomplete
+ * precision don't fool verifier.
+ * The call to bpf_iter_num_next() is reachable with r7 values -16 and -32.
+ * State with r7=-16 is visited first and follows r6 != 42 ... continue branch.
+ * At this point iterator next() call is reached with r7 that has no read
+ * and precision marks.
+ * Loop body with r7=-32 would only be visited if verifier would decide to continue
+ * with second loop iteration. Absence of precision mark on r7 might affect state
+ * equivalent logic used for iterator convergence tracking.
+ *
+ * r8 = 0
+ * fp[-16] = 0
+ * r7 = -16
+ * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
+ * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10)
+ * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) {
+ * if (r6 != 42) {
+ * r7 = -32
+ * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
+ * continue;
+ * }
+ * r0 = r10
+ * r0 += r7
+ * r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0) // this is not safe
+ * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
+ * }
+ * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
+ * return r8
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r8 = 0;"
+ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r8;"
+ "r7 = -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "1:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;\n"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto 2f;"
+ "if r6 != 42 goto 3f;"
+ "r7 = -32;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "goto 1b;\n"
+ "3:"
+ "r0 = r10;"
+ "r0 += r7;"
+ "r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0);"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "goto 1b;\n"
+ "2:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = r8;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_new),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_next),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy),
+ __imm(bpf_probe_read_user)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__failure
+__msg("math between fp pointer and register with unbounded")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked int loop_state_deps1(void)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to C program below.
+ *
+ * The case turns out to be tricky in a sense that:
+ * - states with c=-25 are explored only on a second iteration
+ * of the outer loop;
+ * - states with read+precise mark on c are explored only on
+ * second iteration of the inner loop and in a state which
+ * is pushed to states stack first.
+ *
+ * Depending on the details of iterator convergence logic
+ * verifier might stop states traversal too early and miss
+ * unsafe c=-25 memory access.
+ *
+ * j = iter_new(); // fp[-16]
+ * a = 0; // r6
+ * b = 0; // r7
+ * c = -24; // r8
+ * while (iter_next(j)) {
+ * i = iter_new(); // fp[-8]
+ * a = 0; // r6
+ * b = 0; // r7
+ * while (iter_next(i)) {
+ * if (a == 1) {
+ * a = 0;
+ * b = 1;
+ * } else if (a == 0) {
+ * a = 1;
+ * if (random() == 42)
+ * continue;
+ * if (b == 1) {
+ * *(r10 + c) = 7; // this is not safe
+ * iter_destroy(i);
+ * iter_destroy(j);
+ * return;
+ * }
+ * }
+ * }
+ * iter_destroy(i);
+ * a = 0;
+ * b = 0;
+ * c = -25;
+ * }
+ * iter_destroy(j);
+ * return;
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -16;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "r6 = 0;"
+ "r7 = 0;"
+ "r8 = -24;"
+ "j_loop_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto j_loop_end_%=;"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "r6 = 0;"
+ "r7 = 0;"
+ "i_loop_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto i_loop_end_%=;"
+ "check_one_r6_%=:"
+ "if r6 != 1 goto check_zero_r6_%=;"
+ "r6 = 0;"
+ "r7 = 1;"
+ "goto i_loop_%=;"
+ "check_zero_r6_%=:"
+ "if r6 != 0 goto i_loop_%=;"
+ "r6 = 1;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "if r0 != 42 goto check_one_r7_%=;"
+ "goto i_loop_%=;"
+ "check_one_r7_%=:"
+ "if r7 != 1 goto i_loop_%=;"
+ "r0 = r10;"
+ "r0 += r8;"
+ "r1 = 7;"
+ "*(u64 *)(r0 + 0) = r1;"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ "i_loop_end_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r6 = 0;"
+ "r7 = 0;"
+ "r8 = -25;"
+ "goto j_loop_%=;"
+ "j_loop_end_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_new),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_next),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__success
+__naked int triple_continue(void)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to C program below.
+ * High branching factor of the loop body turned out to be
+ * problematic for one of the iterator convergence tracking
+ * algorithms explored.
+ *
+ * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
+ * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10)
+ * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) {
+ * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42)
+ * continue;
+ * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42)
+ * continue;
+ * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42)
+ * continue;
+ * r0 += 0;
+ * }
+ * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8])
+ * return 0
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "loop_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto loop_end_%=;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;"
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;"
+ "r0 += 0;"
+ "goto loop_%=;"
+ "loop_end_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_new),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_next),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
+SEC("raw_tp")
+__success
+__naked int checkpoint_states_deletion(void)
+{
+ /* This is equivalent to C program below.
+ *
+ * int i;
+ * int sum = 0;
+ * bpf_for(i, 0, 10) {
+ * int *a = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i);
+ * int *b = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i);
+ * int *c = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i);
+ * if (a)
+ * sum += 1;
+ * if (b)
+ * sum += 1;
+ * if (c)
+ * sum += 1;
+ * // a = NULL;
+ * }
+ * return 0;
+ *
+ * Note the commented out 'a = NULL;'.
+ * The body of the loop spawns multiple simulation paths
+ * with different combination of NULL/non-NULL information for a/b/c.
+ * Each combination is unique from states_equal() point of view.
+ * Explored states checkpoint is created after each iterator next call.
+ * Iterator convergence logic expects that eventually current state
+ * would get equal to one of the explored states and thus loop
+ * exploration would be finished (at-least for a specific path).
+ * Verifier evicts explored states with high miss to hit ratio
+ * to to avoid comparing current state with too many explored
+ * states per instruction.
+ * This test is designed to trick the following eviction policy:
+ *
+ * sl->miss_cnt > sl->hit_cnt * 3 + 3 // if true sl->state is evicted
+ *
+ * *If* checkpoint states are allowed to be evicted and the
+ * policy above is used, verifier would remove states too early,
+ * before loop convergence could be established.
+ * Uncommenting 'a = NULL;' reduces number of distinct states
+ * and program verifies.
+ */
+ asm volatile (
+ "r6 = 0;" /* a */
+ "r7 = 0;" /* b */
+ "r8 = 0;" /* c */
+ "r9 = 0;" /* sum */
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "r2 = 0;"
+ "r3 = 10;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];"
+ "loop_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];"
+ "if r0 == 0 goto loop_end_%=;"
+
+ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0;"
+
+ "r1 = %[amap] ll;"
+ "r2 = r10;"
+ "r2 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+
+ "r1 = %[amap] ll;"
+ "r2 = r10;"
+ "r2 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];"
+ "r7 = r0;"
+
+ "r1 = %[amap] ll;"
+ "r2 = r10;"
+ "r2 += -16;"
+ "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];"
+ "r8 = r0;"
+
+ "if r6 == 0 goto +1;"
+ "r9 += 1;"
+ "if r7 == 0 goto +1;"
+ "r9 += 1;"
+ "if r8 == 0 goto +1;"
+ "r9 += 1;"
+
+ /* "r6 = 0;" // Commented out 'a = NULL;' */
+ "goto loop_%=;"
+ "loop_end_%=:"
+ "r1 = r10;"
+ "r1 += -8;"
+ "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_new),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_next),
+ __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy),
+ __imm_addr(amap)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
These test cases try to hide read and precision marks from loop convergence logic: marks would only be assigned on subsequent loop iterations or after exploring states pushed to env->head stack first. Without verifier fix to use exact states comparison logic for iterators convergence these tests (except 'triple_continue') would be errorneously marked as safe. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 443 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 443 insertions(+)