From patchwork Mon Nov 20 22:59:44 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Eduard Zingerman X-Patchwork-Id: 13462258 X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="YxgWmN3q" Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C64CF for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9c773ac9b15so664201366b.2 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:00:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700521218; x=1701126018; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=w/ZOU4kCKz13LpT3X3cOziT4V1fKJtQbR+Fw/mR+7iM=; b=YxgWmN3qwzxCOdlyLIRxwWr7fVbocqFuvQbye0DgypfWYCVpxtVCAsWj065JQNQHcU mdQda+JrZspL+bu+ts76n/lmpfkLNIwpUQTs+HDSY2oY9diyjs7QqYifez+ScFWSmRLa 3zT1xyBewWQ78+lqoSnB/cwySaZfNQDKTlXt8luzPH/foX5yKEe3e8l05s3Z99QfoZmG lZWInn5+4HkT65g9FeaP0ck5uUPQUho+h9SNeWWKl5x/dnr0+NjT0tWJ8akYcKaTs4Wt gzaoU9u2wQuIfj2pCJFiupbU3t8JX74x6PpiDe86ZvCJBgc/61LxmWwtVj71xpscBI3t Vg3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700521218; x=1701126018; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=w/ZOU4kCKz13LpT3X3cOziT4V1fKJtQbR+Fw/mR+7iM=; b=D9j7Fi4IekHqgBgtsWiUL3RqxJwnRyP+IzlLfkwSSkhugBsHMqycwDZuUROPz4VE0B U8oYtCb+bHUi77hP4Z9Sug33SiWaZ/FTetLsiZ5vgLTJYVbDQe0uo3DYvunIm1kN3UCm NE/EivFb84Iu38lxQ8QzGKj+8I8n6N8LqHC2wb9ZTAbuRxFbwBVqZlNTQLz17XmL4HZ+ pZXk8hMxbpwj2GPp8/Wt2JObl5A9xMKKwQFXtqIQFx5ahBSn9nG/eafsT6JwCeIE0TP5 1YFz4QOFpcWzT6cD4CushhfMyIWcFf8ZaIrAwK8T5x7J0ybXR51bjMGVIqw67Lmrx7VF Vx6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwWDncHcpxScowIpK+HDJ4JispeTXGv0K4AbKxbq0eCOFl+baZW FA9GceCDoGNoBhND8bEbMkt/+3JYlXrvlg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFy0XeB2i1yiR0Q7/GVLWymMEaRSja0el2fGSUibJOYGng4374iGNv8GY1pn9IipQ68phceDQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2253:b0:a00:4162:5d98 with SMTP id 19-20020a170906225300b00a0041625d98mr1894468ejr.19.1700521217940; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-176-36-0-241.b024.la.net.ua. [176.36.0.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a9-20020a170906468900b009fd6a22c2e9sm1968039ejr.138.2023.11.20.15.00.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:00:16 -0800 (PST) From: Eduard Zingerman To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, memxor@gmail.com, awerner32@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 10/11] bpf: keep track of max number of bpf_loop callback iterations Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:59:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20231120225945.11741-11-eddyz87@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.42.1 In-Reply-To: <20231120225945.11741-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> References: <20231120225945.11741-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net In some cases verifier can't infer convergence of the bpf_loop() iteration. E.g. for the following program: static int cb(__u32 idx, struct num_context* ctx) { ctx->i++; return 0; } SEC("?raw_tp") int prog(void *_) { struct num_context ctx = { .i = 0 }; __u8 choice_arr[2] = { 0, 1 }; bpf_loop(2, cb, &ctx, 0); return choice_arr[ctx.i]; } Each 'cb' simulation would eventually return to 'prog' and reach 'return choice_arr[ctx.i]' statement. At which point ctx.i would be marked precise, thus forcing verifier to track multitude of separate states with {.i=0}, {.i=1}, ... at bpf_loop() callback entry. This commit allows "brute force" handling for such cases by limiting number of callback body simulations using 'umax' value of the first bpf_loop() parameter. For this, extend bpf_func_state with 'callback_depth' field. Increment this field when callback visiting state is pushed to states traversal stack. For frame #N it's 'callback_depth' field counts how many times callback with frame depth N+1 had been executed. Use bpf_func_state specifically to allow independent tracking of callback depths when multiple nested bpf_loop() calls are present. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 11 ++++++ kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 +++++++-- .../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c | 35 +++++++++++++------ 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index 6e21d74a64e7..9ed6672534c7 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -301,6 +301,17 @@ struct bpf_func_state { struct tnum callback_ret_range; bool in_async_callback_fn; bool in_exception_callback_fn; + /* For callback calling functions that limit number of possible + * callback executions (e.g. bpf_loop) keeps track of current + * simulated iteration number. + * Value in frame N refers to number of times callback with frame + * N+1 was simulated, e.g. for the following call: + * + * bpf_loop(..., fn, ...); | suppose current frame is N + * | fn would be simulated in frame N+1 + * | number of simulations is tracked in frame N + */ + u32 callback_depth; /* The following fields should be last. See copy_func_state() */ int acquired_refs; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 004de7c32bae..37d8c22c292a 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9505,6 +9505,8 @@ static int push_callback_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *ins return err; callback_state->cumulative_callback_depth++; + callback_state->frame[callback_state->curframe - 1]->callback_depth++; + caller->callback_depth = 0; return 0; } @@ -10309,8 +10311,19 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn break; case BPF_FUNC_loop: update_loop_inline_state(env, meta.subprogno); - err = push_callback_call(env, insn, insn_idx, meta.subprogno, - set_loop_callback_state); + /* Verifier relies on R1 value to determine if bpf_loop() iteration + * is finished, thus mark it precise. + */ + mark_chain_precision(env, BPF_REG_1); + if (cur_func(env)->callback_depth < regs[BPF_REG_1].umax_value) { + err = push_callback_call(env, insn, insn_idx, meta.subprogno, + set_loop_callback_state); + } else { + cur_func(env)->callback_depth = 0; + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) + verbose(env, "frame%d bpf_loop iteration limit reached\n", + env->cur_state->curframe); + } break; case BPF_FUNC_dynptr_from_mem: if (regs[BPF_REG_1].type != PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) { diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c index da803cffb5ef..f61d623b1ce8 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c @@ -119,7 +119,23 @@ __naked int global_subprog_result_precise(void) SEC("?raw_tp") __success __log_level(2) -/* First simulated path does not include callback body */ +/* First simulated path does not include callback body, + * r1 and r4 are always precise for bpf_loop() calls. + */ +__msg("9: (85) call bpf_loop#181") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs=r4 stack=:") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 8 first_idx 0 subseq_idx 9") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 8: (b7) r4 = 0") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs=r1 stack=:") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 8 first_idx 0 subseq_idx 9") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 8: (b7) r4 = 0") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 7: (b7) r3 = 0") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 6: (bf) r2 = r8") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 5: (bf) r1 = r6") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r6 stack= before 4: (b7) r6 = 3") +/* r6 precision propagation */ __msg("14: (0f) r1 += r6") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 14 first_idx 9") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r6 stack= before 13: (bf) r1 = r7") @@ -134,10 +150,9 @@ __msg("17: (b7) r0 = 0") __msg("18: (95) exit") __msg("returning from callee:") __msg("to caller at 9:") -/* r4 (flags) is always precise for bpf_loop() */ -__msg("frame 0: propagating r4") +__msg("frame 0: propagating r1,r4") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1") -__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 18: (95) exit") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1,r4 stack= before 18: (95) exit") __msg("from 18 to 9: safe") __naked int callback_result_precise(void) { @@ -264,12 +279,12 @@ __msg("15: (b7) r0 = 0") __msg("16: (95) exit") __msg("returning from callee:") __msg("to caller at 9:") -/* r4 (flags) is always precise for bpf_loop(), +/* r1, r4 are always precise for bpf_loop(), * r6 was marked before backtracking to callback body. */ -__msg("frame 0: propagating r4,r6") +__msg("frame 0: propagating r1,r4,r6") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1") -__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4,r6 stack= before 16: (95) exit") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1,r4,r6 stack= before 16: (95) exit") __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs= stack= before 15: (b7) r0 = 0") __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs= stack= before 9: (85) call bpf_loop") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=:") @@ -422,12 +437,12 @@ __msg("17: (b7) r0 = 0") __msg("18: (95) exit") __msg("returning from callee:") __msg("to caller at 10:") -/* r4 (flags) is always precise for bpf_loop(), +/* r1, r4 are always precise for bpf_loop(), * fp-8 was marked before backtracking to callback body. */ -__msg("frame 0: propagating r4,fp-8") +__msg("frame 0: propagating r1,r4,fp-8") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 10 first_idx 10 subseq_idx -1") -__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack=-8 before 18: (95) exit") +__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1,r4 stack=-8 before 18: (95) exit") __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs= stack= before 17: (b7) r0 = 0") __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs= stack= before 10: (85) call bpf_loop#181") __msg("mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs= stack=:")