From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@orange.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
xiao.han@orange.com, paul.chaignon@gmail.com,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:33:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190321093304.GA1001@Nover> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e84ec4b3-ea21-a2ed-d6fb-1c899ef748d0@fb.com>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:31PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 3/20/19 5:57 AM, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > The BPF verifier checks the maximum number of call stack frames twice,
> > first in the main CFG traversal (do_check) and then in a subsequent
> > traversal (check_max_stack_depth). If the second check fails, it logs a
> > 'verifier bug' warning and errors out, as the number of call stack frames
> > should have been verified already.
> >
> > However, the second check may fail without indicating a verifier bug: if
> > the excessive function calls reside in dead code, the main CFG traversal
> > may not visit them; the subsequent traversal visits all instructions,
> > including dead code.
> >
> > This case raises the question of how invalid dead code should be treated.
>
> Maybe we should do this check after dead code elimination to be
> consistent with do_check? There could some other kinds of illegal stuff
To be clear, are you suggesting we run check_max_stack_depth after the
dead code elimination? That would indeed solve this issue, but Jakub made
the exact reverse change not so long ago, in 9b38c40 ("bpf: verifier:
reorder stack size check with dead code sanitization"). I think the idea
was to avoid having code modifications in between code checks.
> in the dead code, e.g., illegal/unsupported helpers, etc. I suppose we
> did not warn or reject the program, right?
As far as I know, we do not warn or reject the programs for other illegal
stuff found in dead code, no.
>
> > The first patch implements the conservative option and rejects such code;
> > the second adds a test case.
> >
> > Paul Chaignon (2):
> > bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning
> > selftests/bpf: test case for invalid call stack in dead code
> >
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-21 9:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-20 12:57 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 12:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] " Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 12:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for invalid call stack in dead code Paul Chaignon
2019-03-20 23:31 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning Yonghong Song
2019-03-21 9:33 ` Paul Chaignon [this message]
2019-03-26 20:07 ` 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=20190321093304.GA1001@Nover \
--to=paul.chaignon@orange.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=xiao.han@orange.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.