[PATCH bpf v3 0/2] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states

[PATCH bpf v3 0/2] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states

[Eduard Zingerman]

This patch-set fixes bug in states pruning logic hit in mailing list
discussion [0]. The details of the fix are in patch #1.

The main idea for the fix belongs to Yonghong Song,
mine contribution is merely in review and test cases.

There are some changes in verification performance:

File                       Program        Insns    (DIFF)  States  (DIFF)
-------------------------  -------------  ---------------  --------------
pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.o   on_event          +15 (+0.42%)     +0 (+0.00%)
strobemeta_bpf_loop.bpf.o  on_event        +857 (+37.95%)   +60 (+38.96%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o    syncookie_tc   +2892 (+30.39%)  +109 (+36.33%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o    syncookie_xdp  +2892 (+30.01%)  +109 (+36.09%)

(when tested on a subset of selftests identified by
 selftests/bpf/veristat.cfg and Cilium bpf object files from [4])

Changelog:
v2 [2] -> v3:
- fixes for verifier.c commit message as suggested by Yonghong;
- patch-set re-rerouted to 'bpf' tree as suggested in [2];
- patch for test_tcp_custom_syncookie is sent separately to 'bpf-next' [3].
- veristat results updated using 'bpf' tree as baseline and clang 16.

v1 [1] -> v2:
- patch #2 commit message updated to better reflect verifier behavior
  with regards to checkpoints tree (suggested by Yonghong);
- veristat results added (suggested by Andrii).

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240212143832.28838-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240216150334.31937-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240222150300.14909-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[4] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium

Eduard Zingerman (2):
  bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
  selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         |  3 +
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c  | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states

[Eduard Zingerman]

When comparing current and cached states verifier should consider
bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against
cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to
cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it's
callback_depth is smaller.

Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list
discussion [0] (assume that BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ is set).
The example is not a safe program: if loop_cb point (1) is followed by
loop_cb point (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).

    struct ctx {
    	__u64 a;
    	__u64 b;
    	__u64 c;
    };

    static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx)
    {
    	/* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first":
    	 * if ... == 1 goto
    	 * if ... == 2 goto
    	 * <default>
    	 */
    	switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
    	case 1:  /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break;
    	case 2:  /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break;
    	default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break;
    	}
    }

    SEC("tc")
    __failure
    __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
    int test(struct __sk_buff *skb)
    {
    	struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };

    	bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0);              /* 0 */
    	/* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */
    	if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
    		asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0");    /* 4 */
    	return 0;
    }

Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for
this example:

 .------------------------------------- Checkpoint / State name
 |    .-------------------------------- Code point number
 |    |   .---------------------------- Stack state {ctx.a,ctx.b,ctx.c}
 |    |   |        .------------------- Callback depth in frame #0
 v    v   v        v
   - (0) {7P,7P,7},depth=0
     - (3) {7P,7P,7},depth=1
       - (0) {7P,7P,42},depth=1
         - (3) {7P,7,42},depth=2
           - (0) {7P,7,42},depth=2      loop terminates because of depth limit
             - (4) {7P,7,42},depth=0    predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
             - (6) exit
(a)      - (2) {7P,7,42},depth=2
           - (0) {7P,42,42},depth=2     loop terminates because of depth limit
             - (4) {7P,42,42},depth=0   predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
             - (6) exit
(b)      - (1) {7P,7P,42},depth=2
           - (0) {42P,7P,42},depth=2    loop terminates because of depth limit
             - (4) {42P,7P,42},depth=0  predicted false, ctx.{a,b} marked precise
             - (6) exit
     - (2) {7P,7,7},depth=1             considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (a)
(c)  - (1) {7P,7P,7},depth=1            considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (b)

Here checkpoint (b) has callback_depth of 2, meaning that it would
never reach state {42,42,7}.
While checkpoint (c) has callback_depth of 1, and thus
could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely.
This commit makes forbids such premature pruning,
allowing verifier to explore states sub-tree starting at (c):

(c)  - (1) {7,7,7P},depth=1
       - (0) {42P,7,7P},depth=1
         ...
         - (2) {42,7,7},depth=2
           - (0) {42,42,7},depth=2      loop terminates because of depth limit
             - (4) {42,42,7},depth=0    predicted true, ctx.{a,b,c} marked precise
               - (5) division by zero

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/

Fixes: bb124da69c47 ("bpf: keep track of max number of bpf_loop callback iterations")
Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b263f093ee76..ddea9567f755 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16602,6 +16602,9 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat
 {
 	int i;
 
+	if (old->callback_depth > cur->callback_depth)
+		return false;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
 		if (!regsafe(env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i],
 			     &env->idmap_scratch, exact))
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic

[Eduard Zingerman]

The test case was minimized from mailing list discussion [0].
It is equivalent to the following C program:

    struct iter_limit_bug_ctx { __u64 a; __u64 b; __u64 c; };

    static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb(void)
    {
    	switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
    	case 1:  ctx->a = 42; break;
    	case 2:  ctx->b = 42; break;
    	default: ctx->c = 42; break;
    	}
    }

    int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb)
    {
    	struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };

    	bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0);
    	if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
    	  asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1");
    	return 0;
    }

The main idea is that each loop iteration changes one of the state
variables in a non-deterministic manner. Hence it is premature to
prune the states that have two iterations left comparing them to
states with one iteration left.
E.g. {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=0} can reach state {42,42,7},
while {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=1} can't.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c  | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
index 5905e036e0ea..a955a6358206 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c
@@ -239,4 +239,74 @@ int bpf_loop_iter_limit_nested(void *unused)
 	return 1000 * a + b + c;
 }
 
+struct iter_limit_bug_ctx {
+	__u64 a;
+	__u64 b;
+	__u64 c;
+};
+
+static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb(void)
+{
+	/* This is the same as C code below, but written
+	 * in assembly to control which branches are fall-through.
+	 *
+	 *   switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
+	 *   case 1:  ctx->a = 42; break;
+	 *   case 2:  ctx->b = 42; break;
+	 *   default: ctx->c = 42; break;
+	 *   }
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r9 = r2;"
+	"call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+	"r1 = r0;"
+	"r2 = 42;"
+	"r0 = 0;"
+	"if r1 == 0x1 goto 1f;"
+	"if r1 == 0x2 goto 2f;"
+	"*(u64 *)(r9 + 16) = r2;"
+	"exit;"
+	"1: *(u64 *)(r9 + 0) = r2;"
+	"exit;"
+	"2: *(u64 *)(r9 + 8) = r2;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all
+	);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+__failure
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
+
+	bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0);
+
+	/* This is the same as C code below,
+	 * written in assembly to guarantee checks order.
+	 *
+	 *   if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
+	 *     asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1");
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_a];"
+	"if r1 != 42 goto 1f;"
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_b];"
+	"if r1 != 42 goto 1f;"
+	"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_c];"
+	"if r1 != 7 goto 1f;"
+	"r1 /= 0;"
+	"1:"
+	:
+	: [ctx_a]"m"(ctx.a),
+	  [ctx_b]"m"(ctx.b),
+	  [ctx_c]"m"(ctx.c)
+	: "r1"
+	);
+	return 0;
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states

[Yonghong Song]

On 2/22/24 7:41 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> When comparing current and cached states verifier should consider
> bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against
> cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to
> cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it's
> callback_depth is smaller.
>
> Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list
> discussion [0] (assume that BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ is set).
> The example is not a safe program: if loop_cb point (1) is followed by
> loop_cb point (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).
>
>      struct ctx {
>      	__u64 a;
>      	__u64 b;
>      	__u64 c;
>      };
>
>      static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx)
>      {
>      	/* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first":
>      	 * if ... == 1 goto
>      	 * if ... == 2 goto
>      	 * <default>
>      	 */
>      	switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
>      	case 1:  /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break;
>      	case 2:  /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break;
>      	default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break;
>      	}
>      }
>
>      SEC("tc")
>      __failure
>      __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
>      int test(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>      {
>      	struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
>
>      	bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0);              /* 0 */
>      	/* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */
>      	if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
>      		asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0");    /* 4 */
>      	return 0;
>      }
>
> Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for
> this example:
>
>   .------------------------------------- Checkpoint / State name
>   |    .-------------------------------- Code point number
>   |    |   .---------------------------- Stack state {ctx.a,ctx.b,ctx.c}
>   |    |   |        .------------------- Callback depth in frame #0
>   v    v   v        v
>     - (0) {7P,7P,7},depth=0
>       - (3) {7P,7P,7},depth=1
>         - (0) {7P,7P,42},depth=1
>           - (3) {7P,7,42},depth=2
>             - (0) {7P,7,42},depth=2      loop terminates because of depth limit
>               - (4) {7P,7,42},depth=0    predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
>               - (6) exit
> (a)      - (2) {7P,7,42},depth=2
>             - (0) {7P,42,42},depth=2     loop terminates because of depth limit
>               - (4) {7P,42,42},depth=0   predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
>               - (6) exit
> (b)      - (1) {7P,7P,42},depth=2
>             - (0) {42P,7P,42},depth=2    loop terminates because of depth limit
>               - (4) {42P,7P,42},depth=0  predicted false, ctx.{a,b} marked precise
>               - (6) exit
>       - (2) {7P,7,7},depth=1             considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (a)
> (c)  - (1) {7P,7P,7},depth=1            considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (b)
>
> Here checkpoint (b) has callback_depth of 2, meaning that it would
> never reach state {42,42,7}.
> While checkpoint (c) has callback_depth of 1, and thus
> could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely.
> This commit makes forbids such premature pruning,
> allowing verifier to explore states sub-tree starting at (c):
>
> (c)  - (1) {7,7,7P},depth=1
>         - (0) {42P,7,7P},depth=1
>           ...
>           - (2) {42,7,7},depth=2
>             - (0) {42,42,7},depth=2      loop terminates because of depth limit
>               - (4) {42,42,7},depth=0    predicted true, ctx.{a,b,c} marked precise
>                 - (5) division by zero
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/
>
> Fixes: bb124da69c47 ("bpf: keep track of max number of bpf_loop callback iterations")
> Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

Thanks for updating commit messages. It looks correct to me.

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>

Re: [PATCH bpf v3 0/2] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:41:19 +0200 you wrote:
> This patch-set fixes bug in states pruning logic hit in mailing list
> discussion [0]. The details of the fix are in patch #1.
> 
> The main idea for the fix belongs to Yonghong Song,
> mine contribution is merely in review and test cases.
> 
> There are some changes in verification performance:
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf,v3,1/2] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/f31f0fe3d738
  - [bpf,v3,2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/2861d07c5289

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html