All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@meta.com>,
	Delyan Kratunov <delyank@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/25] bpf: Support constant scalar arguments for kfuncs
Date: Tue,  8 Nov 2022 04:39:39 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221107230950.7117-15-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221107230950.7117-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Allow passing known constant scalars as arguments to kfuncs that do not
represent a size parameter. This makes the search pruning optimization
of verifier more conservative for such kfunc calls, and each
non-distinct argument is considered unequivalent.

We will use this support to then expose a global bpf_kptr_alloc function
where it takes the local type ID in program BTF, and returns a
PTR_TO_BTF_ID to the local type. These will be called local kptrs, and
allows programs to allocate their own objects.

However, this is still not completely safe, as mark_chain_precision
logic is buggy without more work when the constant argument is not a
size, but still needs precise marker propagation for pruning checks.
Next patch will fix this problem.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
index 0f858156371d..7608b066a8ba 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
@@ -72,6 +72,36 @@ argument as its size. By default, without __sz annotation, the size of the type
 of the pointer is used. Without __sz annotation, a kfunc cannot accept a void
 pointer.
 
+2.2.1 __k Annotation
+--------------------
+
+This annotation is only understood for scalar arguments, where it indicates that
+the verifier must check the scalar argument to be a known constant, which does
+not indicate a size parameter. This distinction is important, as when the scalar
+argument does not represent a size parameter, verifier is more conservative in
+state search pruning and does not consider two arguments equivalent for safety
+purposes if the already verified value was within range of the new one.
+
+This assumption holds well for sizes (as memory accessed within smaller bounds
+in old verified state will also work for bigger bounds in current to be explored
+state), but not for other constant arguments where each carries a distinct
+semantic effect.
+
+An example is given below::
+
+        void *bpf_obj_new(u32 local_type_id__k, ...)
+        {
+        ...
+        }
+
+Here, bpf_obj_new uses local_type_id argument to find out the size of that
+type ID in program's BTF and return a sized pointer to it. Each type ID will
+have a distinct size, hence it is crucial to treat each such call as distinct
+when values don't match.
+
+Hence, whenever a constant scalar argument is accepted by a kfunc which is not a
+size parameter, __k suffix must be used.
+
 .. _BPF_kfunc_nodef:
 
 2.3 Using an existing kernel function
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index c315e8448156..7515b31d2c40 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -7862,6 +7862,10 @@ struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta {
 	u8 release_regno;
 	bool r0_rdonly;
 	u64 r0_size;
+	struct {
+		u64 value;
+		bool found;
+	} arg_constant;
 };
 
 static bool is_kfunc_acquire(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta)
@@ -7899,30 +7903,40 @@ static bool is_kfunc_arg_kptr_get(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta, int arg)
 	return arg == 0 && (meta->kfunc_flags & KF_KPTR_GET);
 }
 
-static bool is_kfunc_arg_mem_size(const struct btf *btf,
-				  const struct btf_param *arg,
-				  const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+static bool __kfunc_param_match_suffix(const struct btf *btf,
+				       const struct btf_param *arg,
+				       const char *suffix)
 {
-	int len, sfx_len = sizeof("__sz") - 1;
-	const struct btf_type *t;
+	int suffix_len = strlen(suffix), len;
 	const char *param_name;
 
-	t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, arg->type, NULL);
-	if (!btf_type_is_scalar(t) || reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
-		return false;
-
 	/* In the future, this can be ported to use BTF tagging */
 	param_name = btf_name_by_offset(btf, arg->name_off);
 	if (str_is_empty(param_name))
 		return false;
 	len = strlen(param_name);
-	if (len < sfx_len)
+	if (len < suffix_len)
 		return false;
-	param_name += len - sfx_len;
-	if (strncmp(param_name, "__sz", sfx_len))
+	param_name += len - suffix_len;
+	return !strncmp(param_name, suffix, suffix_len);
+}
+
+static bool is_kfunc_arg_mem_size(const struct btf *btf,
+				  const struct btf_param *arg,
+				  const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+	const struct btf_type *t;
+
+	t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, arg->type, NULL);
+	if (!btf_type_is_scalar(t) || reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
 		return false;
 
-	return true;
+	return __kfunc_param_match_suffix(btf, arg, "__sz");
+}
+
+static bool is_kfunc_arg_sfx_constant(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_param *arg)
+{
+	return __kfunc_param_match_suffix(btf, arg, "__k");
 }
 
 static bool is_kfunc_arg_ret_buf_size(const struct btf *btf,
@@ -8198,7 +8212,24 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
 				verbose(env, "R%d is not a scalar\n", regno);
 				return -EINVAL;
 			}
-			if (is_kfunc_arg_ret_buf_size(btf, &args[i], reg, "rdonly_buf_size")) {
+			if (is_kfunc_arg_sfx_constant(meta->btf, &args[i])) {
+				/* kfunc is already bpf_capable() only, no need
+				 * to check it here.
+				 */
+				if (meta->arg_constant.found) {
+					verbose(env, "verifier internal error: only one constant argument permitted\n");
+					return -EFAULT;
+				}
+				if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
+					verbose(env, "R%d must be a known constant\n", regno);
+					return -EINVAL;
+				}
+				ret = mark_chain_precision(env, regno);
+				if (ret < 0)
+					return ret;
+				meta->arg_constant.found = true;
+				meta->arg_constant.value = reg->var_off.value;
+			} else if (is_kfunc_arg_ret_buf_size(btf, &args[i], reg, "rdonly_buf_size")) {
 					meta->r0_rdonly = true;
 					is_ret_buf_sz = true;
 			} else if (is_kfunc_arg_ret_buf_size(btf, &args[i], reg, "rdwr_buf_size")) {
-- 
2.38.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-07 23:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-07 23:09 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/25] Local kptrs, BPF linked lists Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/25] bpf: Remove BPF_MAP_OFF_ARR_MAX Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/25] bpf: Fix copy_map_value, zero_map_value Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/25] bpf: Support bpf_list_head in map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-08 23:01   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-08 23:39     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:22       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09  1:03         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-09 16:41           ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09 23:14             ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 23:11           ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 23:35             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/25] bpf: Rename RET_PTR_TO_ALLOC_MEM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-08 23:08   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/25] bpf: Rename MEM_ALLOC to MEM_RINGBUF Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-08 23:14   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-08 23:49     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:26       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09  1:05         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-09 22:58           ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/25] bpf: Introduce local kptrs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-08 23:29   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09  0:00     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:36       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09  1:32         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-09 17:00           ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09 23:23             ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 23:21           ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/25] bpf: Recognize bpf_{spin_lock,list_head,list_node} in " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/25] bpf: Verify ownership relationships for user BTF types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/25] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in local kptr Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/25] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock global variables Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-08 23:37   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09  0:03     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/25] bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in inner map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/25] bpf: Rewrite kfunc argument handling Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/25] bpf: Drop kfunc bits from btf_check_func_arg_match Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 15/25] bpf: Teach verifier about non-size constant arguments Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:05   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 16:29     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 16/25] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_new Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 17/25] bpf: Introduce bpf_obj_drop Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 18/25] bpf: Permit NULL checking pointer with non-zero fixed offset Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 19/25] bpf: Introduce single ownership BPF linked list API Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 20/25] bpf: Add 'release on unlock' logic for bpf_list_push_{front,back} Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 21/25] selftests/bpf: Add __contains macro to bpf_experimental.h Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 22/25] selftests/bpf: Update spinlock selftest Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:13   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 16:32     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 23/25] selftests/bpf: Add failure test cases for spin lock pairing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 24/25] selftests/bpf: Add BPF linked list API tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-07 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 25/25] selftests/bpf: Add BTF sanity tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-11-09  0:18   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-11-09 16:33     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

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=20221107230950.7117-15-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
    --cc=delyank@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    /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.