Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/5] bpf: verifier: Refactor helper access type tracking

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 16:22 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Previously, the verifier was treating all PTR_TO_STACK registers passed
> to a helper call as potentially written to by the helper. However, all
> calls to check_stack_range_initialized() already have precise access type
> information available.
> 
> Rather than treat ACCESS_HELPER as a proxy for BPF_WRITE, pass
> enum bpf_access_type to check_stack_range_initialized() to more
> precisely track helper arguments.
> 
> One benefit from this precision is that registers tracked as valid
> spills and passed as a read-only helper argument remain tracked after
> the call.  Rather than being marked STACK_MISC afterwards.
> 
> An additional benefit is the verifier logs are also more precise. For
> this particular error, users will enjoy a slightly clearer message. See
> included selftest updates for examples.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> ---

I think this change is ok.
With it there is only one use of 'enum bpf_access_src' remains,
but it doesn't look like it could be removed.

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

[...]

> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uninit_stack.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uninit_stack.c
> @@ -55,33 +55,4 @@ exit_%=:	r0 = 0;					\
>  		      : __clobber_all);
>  }
>  
> -static __noinline void dummy(void) {}
> -
> -/* Pass a pointer to uninitialized stack memory to a helper.
> - * Passed memory block should be marked as STACK_MISC after helper call.
> - */
> -SEC("socket")
> -__log_level(7) __msg("fp-104=mmmmmmmm")
> -__naked int helper_uninit_to_misc(void *ctx)

Is it possible to peek a helper that writes into memory and not delete
this test?

> -{
> -	asm volatile ("					\
> -		/* force stack depth to be 128 */	\
> -		*(u64*)(r10 - 128) = r1;		\
> -		r1 = r10;				\
> -		r1 += -128;				\
> -		r2 = 32;				\
> -		call %[bpf_trace_printk];		\
> -		/* Call to dummy() forces print_verifier_state(..., true),	\
> -		 * thus showing the stack state, matched by __msg().		\
> -		 */					\
> -		call %[dummy];				\
> -		r0 = 0;					\
> -		exit;					\
> -"
> -		      :
> -		      : __imm(bpf_trace_printk),
> -			__imm(dummy)
> -		      : __clobber_all);
> -}
> -

[...]