All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com
Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
	jolsa@kernel.org, emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
	john.fastabend@gmail.com, shuah@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/12] bpf: Keep the 32-bit range across a sign extension that cannot change it
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 09:18:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261020161907.2115379-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261020161907.2115379-1-vineet.gupta@linux.dev>

This patch addresses the verifier deficiency where it would throw away
a good range whenever that range crossed zero.

| 1: (54) w0 &= 63      ; R0=scalar(smin32=0,smax32=63,...)
| 2: (14) w0 -= 63      ; R0=scalar(smin32=-63,smax32=0,...)
| 3: (bc) w0 = (s8)w0   ; R0=scalar(smin32=-128,smax32=127,...)
| 4: (c6) if w0 s< 0xffffffc1 goto pc+2
| ...
| 7: (34) w0 /= 0
| div by zero

[-63, 0] already fits an s8, so insn 3 cannot change any value in it, yet
the range comes out widened to [-128, 127]. The guard at insn 4 then
cannot be resolved and the div becomes reachable.

The issue is the following check in coerce_subreg_to_size_sx()

	top_smax_value = ((u32)reg_s32_max(reg) >> num_bits) << num_bits;
	top_smin_value = ((u32)reg_s32_min(reg) >> num_bits) << num_bits;

	if (top_smax_value != top_smin_value)
		goto out;

which doesn't fire when the range includes zero, since the top bits
differ. e.g. for [-63, 0]:

    smin32 = -63: high bits all ones
    smax32 =   0: high bits all zero

The cheap noop test above it does not catch this either -- it only looks
at reg_umax(), which a negative smin makes huge.

The 64-bit twin, coerce_reg_to_size_sx(), had the same gap and was given
an equivalent early return by commit 0892ef2a7ef3 ("bpf: Representation
for intervals with steps"). This patch does the same for the 32-bit path,
for the s8 and s16 widths it handles. It doesn't improve anything in
selftests or corpora of external objects -- the shape above only shows up
in the test the next patch adds -- but seems like the right thing to do
anyways.

Fixes: 8100928c8814 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
---
v3: was v2 5/13.
 - moved to the front: it is unrelated to the low-32 tracking (Alexei)
 - narrowed to the 32-bit path. Commit 0892ef2a7ef3 ("bpf:
   Representation for intervals with steps") has since given
   coerce_reg_to_size_sx() an equivalent early return, so Fixes:
   1f9a1ea821ff goes with that half.
 - measured inert: 0 instruction and 0 state changes on both selftest
   corpora and on 441 external objects.

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 62f8951126ba..e1b41975a442 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -6182,6 +6182,7 @@ static void set_sext32_default_val(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size)
 static void coerce_subreg_to_size_sx(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size)
 {
 	s32 init_s32_max, init_s32_min, s32_max, s32_min, u32_val;
+	s32 field_smin, field_smax;
 	u32 top_smax_value, top_smin_value;
 	u32 num_bits = size * 8;
 
@@ -6192,6 +6193,27 @@ static void coerce_subreg_to_size_sx(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size)
 	if (reg_umax(reg) < (1ULL << (num_bits - 1)))
 		return;
 
+	if (size == 1) {
+		field_smin = S8_MIN;
+		field_smax = S8_MAX;
+	} else {
+		/* size == 2 */
+		field_smin = S16_MIN;
+		field_smax = S16_MAX;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * The range already fits the field, so (sN)v == v for every value the
+	 * register can hold and the sign extension changes nothing. The test
+	 * above misses this once the range straddles zero: it only looks at
+	 * reg_umax(), which a negative smin makes huge.
+	 *
+	 * This has to precede reg_step_reset() below: the extension is a noop,
+	 * so the base/step line still holds and there is nothing to discard.
+	 */
+	if (reg_s32_min(reg) >= field_smin && reg_s32_max(reg) <= field_smax)
+		return;
+
 	/* See comment at reg_step_check_unsigned(). */
 	reg_step_reset(reg);
 
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-20 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-20 16:18 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/12] bpf: track scalar equality across the low 32 bits Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:18 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2026-10-20 16:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Cover sign extensions that cannot change the range Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: Prepare linked scalars for relations narrower than 64 bits Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 17:08   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-20 16:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/12] bpf: Track low-32 scalar equality across zero-extending movs Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-20 17:09   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/12] selftests/bpf: Cover the low-32 link for " Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:53   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/12] bpf: Track low-32 scalar equality across sign-extending movs Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:57   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/12] selftests/bpf: Cover the low-32 link for " Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/12] bpf: Recover the low 32 bits on the reverse link direction Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:53   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-20 17:20   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/12] bpf: Track low-32 scalar equality across narrowing stack fills Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/12] selftests/bpf: Cover the low-32 link for " Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:29   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-20 17:15     ` Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/12] [do not merge] bpf: Track low-32 scalar equality across narrowing stack spills Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:42   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-20 16:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/12] [do not merge] selftests/bpf: Cover the low-32 link for " Vineet Gupta
2026-10-20 16:32   ` sashiko-bot

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=20261020161907.2115379-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
    --to=vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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.