All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/4] selftests/bpf: check if mark_chain_precision() follows scalar ids
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:07:59 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230612160801.2804666-3-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230612160801.2804666-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

Check __mark_chain_precision() log to verify that scalars with same
IDs are marked as precise. Use several scenarios to test that
precision marks are propagated through:
- registers of scalar type with the same ID within one state;
- registers of scalar type with the same ID cross several states;
- registers of scalar type  with the same ID cross several stack frames;
- stack slot of scalar type with the same ID;
- multiple scalar IDs are tracked independently.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c       |   2 +
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c | 344 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 346 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
index 531621adef42..070a13833c3f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
 #include "verifier_regalloc.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_ringbuf.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_runtime_jit.skel.h"
+#include "verifier_scalar_ids.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_search_pruning.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_sock.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_spill_fill.skel.h"
@@ -150,6 +151,7 @@ void test_verifier_ref_tracking(void)         { RUN(verifier_ref_tracking); }
 void test_verifier_regalloc(void)             { RUN(verifier_regalloc); }
 void test_verifier_ringbuf(void)              { RUN(verifier_ringbuf); }
 void test_verifier_runtime_jit(void)          { RUN(verifier_runtime_jit); }
+void test_verifier_scalar_ids(void)           { RUN(verifier_scalar_ids); }
 void test_verifier_search_pruning(void)       { RUN(verifier_search_pruning); }
 void test_verifier_sock(void)                 { RUN(verifier_sock); }
 void test_verifier_spill_fill(void)           { RUN(verifier_spill_fill); }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8a5203fb14ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+/* Check that precision marks propagate through scalar IDs.
+ * Registers r{0,1,2} have the same scalar ID at the moment when r0 is
+ * marked to be precise, this mark is immediately propagated to r{1,2}.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_same_state(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r2 = r0;"
+	/* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+	 * precise as well because of shared IDs
+	 */
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	"r3 += r0;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state, but mark propagates through state /
+ * parent state boundary.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 5 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 5: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0,r1,r2 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (05) goto pc+0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_cross_state(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r2 = r0;"
+	/* force checkpoint */
+	"goto +0;"
+	/* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+	 * precise as well because of shared IDs
+	 */
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	"r3 += r0;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state, but break one of the
+ * links, note that r1 is absent from regs=... in __msg below.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 5: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 4: (b7) r1 = 0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_same_state_broken_link(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r2 = r0;"
+	/* break link for r1, this is the only line that differs
+	 * compared to the previous test
+	 */
+	"r1 = 0;"
+	/* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+	 * precise as well because of shared IDs
+	 */
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	"r3 += r0;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state_broken_link, but with state /
+ * parent state boundary.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 6: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 5: (b7) r1 = 0")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0,r2 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (05) goto pc+0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_cross_state_broken_link(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r2 = r0;"
+	/* force checkpoint, although link between r1 and r{0,2} is
+	 * broken by the next statement current precision tracking
+	 * algorithm can't react to it and propagates mark for r1 to
+	 * the parent state.
+	 */
+	"goto +0;"
+	/* break link for r1, this is the only line that differs
+	 * compared to precision_cross_state()
+	 */
+	"r1 = 0;"
+	/* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+	 * precise as well because of shared IDs
+	 */
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	"r3 += r0;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Check that precision marks propagate through scalar IDs.
+ * Use the same scalar ID in multiple stack frames, check that
+ * precision information is propagated up the call stack.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("11: (0f) r2 += r1")
+/* Current state */
+__msg("frame2: last_idx 11 first_idx 10 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("frame2: regs=r1 stack= before 10: (bf) r2 = r10")
+__msg("frame2: parent state regs=r1 stack=")
+/* frame1.r{6,7} are marked because mark_precise_scalar_ids()
+ * looks for all registers with frame2.r1.id in the current state
+ */
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r6,r7 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame2: last_idx 8 first_idx 8 subseq_idx 10")
+__msg("frame2: regs=r1 stack= before 8: (85) call pc+1")
+/* frame1.r1 is marked because of backtracking of call instruction */
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r1,r6,r7 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame1: last_idx 7 first_idx 6 subseq_idx 8")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1,r6,r7 stack= before 7: (bf) r7 = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1,r6 stack= before 6: (bf) r6 = r1")
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r1 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame1: last_idx 4 first_idx 4 subseq_idx 6")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 4: (85) call pc+1")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r1,r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame0: last_idx 3 first_idx 1 subseq_idx 4")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r6 stack= before 3: (bf) r6 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_many_frames(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == r6.id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r6 = r0;"
+	"call precision_many_frames__foo;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_many_frames__foo(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* conflate one of the register numbers (r6) with outer frame,
+	 * to verify that those are tracked independently
+	 */
+	"r6 = r1;"
+	"r7 = r1;"
+	"call precision_many_frames__bar;"
+	"exit"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_many_frames__bar(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* force r1 to be precise, this immediately marks:
+	 * - bar frame r1
+	 * - foo frame r{1,6,7}
+	 * - main frame r{1,6}
+	 */
+	"r2 = r10;"
+	"r2 += r1;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Check that scalars with the same IDs are marked precise on stack as
+ * well as in registers.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+/* foo frame */
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8,-16 before 9: (bf) r2 = r10")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8,-16 before 8: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8 before 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 4: (85) call pc+2")
+/* main frame */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack=-8 before 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_stack(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	/* tie r0.id == r1.id == fp[-8].id */
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;"
+	"call precision_stack__foo;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_stack__foo(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* conflate one of the register numbers (r6) with outer frame,
+	 * to verify that those are tracked independently
+	 */
+	"*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;"
+	"*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r1;"
+	/* force r1 to be precise, this immediately marks:
+	 * - foo frame r1,fp{-8,-16}
+	 * - main frame r1,fp{-8}
+	 */
+	"r2 = r10;"
+	"r2 += r1;"
+	"exit"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Use two separate scalar IDs to check that these are propagated
+ * independently.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+/* r{6,7} */
+__msg("11: (0f) r3 += r7")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r6,r7 stack= before 10: (bf) r3 = r10")
+/* ... skip some insns ... */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r6,r7 stack= before 3: (bf) r7 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r6 stack= before 2: (bf) r6 = r0")
+/* r{8,9} */
+__msg("12: (0f) r3 += r9")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r8,r9 stack= before 11: (0f) r3 += r7")
+/* ... skip some insns ... */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r8,r9 stack= before 7: (bf) r9 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r8 stack= before 6: (bf) r8 = r0")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_two_ids(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	/* r6 = random number up to 0xff
+	 * r6.id == r7.id
+	 */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	"r6 = r0;"
+	"r7 = r0;"
+	/* same, but for r{8,9} */
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	"r0 &= 0xff;"
+	"r8 = r0;"
+	"r9 = r0;"
+	/* clear r0 id */
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	/* force checkpoint */
+	"goto +0;"
+	"r3 = r10;"
+	/* force r7 to be precise, this also marks r6 */
+	"r3 += r7;"
+	/* force r9 to be precise, this also marks r8 */
+	"r3 += r9;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.40.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-12 16:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-12 16:07 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/4] verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 16:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/4] bpf: use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 19:56   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 16:07 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-06-12 16:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() using check_ids() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 19:56   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 21:01     ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13  0:10       ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13  0:28         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13  8:02   ` kernel test robot
2023-06-12 16:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/4] selftests/bpf: verify that check_ids() is used for scalars in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 17:40   ` Maxim Mikityanskiy
2023-06-12 19:42     ` Eduard Zingerman

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=20230612160801.2804666-3-eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --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.