From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
martin.lau@kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 17/23] bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle two sets of two registers
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 20:14:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1ed9ec950b35d6e53f22e63a21b7d02a8907b4a5.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231027181346.4019398-18-andrii@kernel.org>
On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 11:13 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Change reg_set_min_max() to take FALSE/TRUE sets of two registers each,
> instead of assuming that we are always comparing to a constant. For now
> we still assume that right-hand side registers are constants (and make
> sure that's the case by swapping src/dst regs, if necessary), but
> subsequent patches will remove this limitation.
>
> Taking two by two registers allows to further unify and simplify
> check_cond_jmp_op() logic. We utilize fake register for BPF_K
> conditional jump case, just like with is_branch_taken() part.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index dde04b17c3a3..522566699fbe 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -14387,26 +14387,43 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg
> * In JEQ/JNE cases we also adjust the var_off values.
> */
> static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg1,
> + struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg2,
> struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg1,
> - u64 val, u32 val32,
> + struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg2,
> u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
> {
> - struct tnum false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg1->var_off);
> - struct tnum false_64off = false_reg1->var_off;
> - struct tnum true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg1->var_off);
> - struct tnum true_64off = true_reg1->var_off;
> - s64 sval = (s64)val;
> - s32 sval32 = (s32)val32;
> -
> - /* If the dst_reg is a pointer, we can't learn anything about its
> - * variable offset from the compare (unless src_reg were a pointer into
> - * the same object, but we don't bother with that.
> - * Since false_reg1 and true_reg1 have the same type by construction, we
> - * only need to check one of them for pointerness.
> + struct tnum false_32off, false_64off;
> + struct tnum true_32off, true_64off;
> + u64 val;
> + u32 val32;
> + s64 sval;
> + s32 sval32;
> +
> + /* If either register is a pointer, we can't learn anything about its
> + * variable offset from the compare (unless they were a pointer into
> + * the same object, but we don't bother with that).
> */
> - if (__is_pointer_value(false, false_reg1))
> + if (false_reg1->type != SCALAR_VALUE || false_reg2->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
> + return;
> +
> + /* we expect right-hand registers (src ones) to be constants, for now */
> + if (!is_reg_const(false_reg2, is_jmp32)) {
> + opcode = flip_opcode(opcode);
> + swap(true_reg1, true_reg2);
> + swap(false_reg1, false_reg2);
> + }
> + if (!is_reg_const(false_reg2, is_jmp32))
> return;
>
> + false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg1->var_off);
> + false_64off = false_reg1->var_off;
> + true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg1->var_off);
> + true_64off = true_reg1->var_off;
> + val = false_reg2->var_off.value;
> + val32 = (u32)tnum_subreg(false_reg2->var_off).value;
> + sval = (s64)val;
> + sval32 = (s32)val32;
> +
> switch (opcode) {
> /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence.
> *
> @@ -14543,22 +14560,6 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg1,
> }
> }
>
> -/* Same as above, but for the case that dst_reg holds a constant and src_reg is
> - * the variable reg.
> - */
> -static void reg_set_min_max_inv(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
> - struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg,
> - u64 val, u32 val32,
> - u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
> -{
> - opcode = flip_opcode(opcode);
> - /* This uses zero as "not present in table"; luckily the zero opcode,
> - * BPF_JA, can't get here.
> - */
> - if (opcode)
> - reg_set_min_max(true_reg, false_reg, val, val32, opcode, is_jmp32);
> -}
> -
> /* Regs are known to be equal, so intersect their min/max/var_off */
> static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg,
> struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
> @@ -14891,45 +14892,30 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> * comparable.
> */
> if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
> - struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg = ®s[insn->src_reg];
> + reg_set_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg],
> + &other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg],
> + dst_reg, src_reg, opcode, is_jmp32);
>
> if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE &&
> - src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
> - if (tnum_is_const(src_reg->var_off) ||
> - (is_jmp32 &&
> - tnum_is_const(tnum_subreg(src_reg->var_off))))
> - reg_set_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg],
> - dst_reg,
> - src_reg->var_off.value,
> - tnum_subreg(src_reg->var_off).value,
> - opcode, is_jmp32);
> - else if (tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off) ||
> - (is_jmp32 &&
> - tnum_is_const(tnum_subreg(dst_reg->var_off))))
> - reg_set_min_max_inv(&other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg],
> - src_reg,
> - dst_reg->var_off.value,
> - tnum_subreg(dst_reg->var_off).value,
> - opcode, is_jmp32);
> - else if (!is_jmp32 &&
> - (opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE))
> - /* Comparing for equality, we can combine knowledge */
> - reg_combine_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg],
> - &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg],
> - src_reg, dst_reg, opcode);
> - if (src_reg->id &&
> - !WARN_ON_ONCE(src_reg->id != other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg].id)) {
> - find_equal_scalars(this_branch, src_reg);
> - find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg]);
> - }
> -
> + src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE &&
> + !is_jmp32 && (opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE)) {
> + /* Comparing for equality, we can combine knowledge */
> + reg_combine_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg],
> + &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg],
> + src_reg, dst_reg, opcode);
> }
> } else if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
> - reg_set_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg],
> - dst_reg, insn->imm, (u32)insn->imm,
> - opcode, is_jmp32);
> + reg_set_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg], src_reg, /* fake one */
> + dst_reg, src_reg /* same fake one */,
> + opcode, is_jmp32);
> }
>
> + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
> + src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && src_reg->id &&
> + !WARN_ON_ONCE(src_reg->id != other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg].id)) {
> + find_equal_scalars(this_branch, src_reg);
> + find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg]);
> + }
> if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && dst_reg->id &&
> !WARN_ON_ONCE(dst_reg->id != other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg].id)) {
> find_equal_scalars(this_branch, dst_reg);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-31 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-27 18:13 [PATCH v5 bpf-next 00/23] BPF register bounds logic and testing improvements Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 01/23] selftests/bpf: fix RELEASE=1 build for tc_opts Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 02/23] selftests/bpf: satisfy compiler by having explicit return in btf test Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 03/23] bpf: derive smin/smax from umin/max bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-31 17:30 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 04/23] bpf: derive smin32/smax32 from umin32/umax32 bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 05/23] bpf: derive subreg bounds from full bounds when upper 32 bits are constant Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 06/23] bpf: add special smin32/smax32 derivation from 64-bit bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-31 17:39 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 18:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 18:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 07/23] bpf: improve deduction of 64-bit bounds from 32-bit bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-31 20:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 20:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 08/23] bpf: try harder to deduce register bounds from different numeric domains Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 09/23] bpf: drop knowledge-losing __reg_combine_{32,64}_into_{64,32} logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:38 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 10/23] selftests/bpf: BPF register range bounds tester Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-08 22:08 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-08 23:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-09 0:30 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/23] bpf: rename is_branch_taken reg arguments to prepare for the second one Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-30 19:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 5:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 12/23] bpf: generalize is_branch_taken() to work with two registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:38 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-31 17:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 13/23] bpf: move is_branch_taken() down Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 14/23] bpf: generalize is_branch_taken to handle all conditional jumps in one place Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 15:38 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 15/23] bpf: unify 32-bit and 64-bit is_branch_taken logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-30 19:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 5:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 17:35 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 16/23] bpf: prepare reg_set_min_max for second set of registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 17/23] bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle two sets of two registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 2:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 6:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 16:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 17:50 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 17:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 18:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 18:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 18:14 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 18/23] bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle non-const register comparisons Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 23:25 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-01 16:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-01 17:12 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 19/23] bpf: generalize is_scalar_branch_taken() logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 2:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 6:12 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 16:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 18:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 20:53 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 20:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 20/23] bpf: enhance BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE is_branch_taken logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 2:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 6:16 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 16:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 18:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-31 18:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 21/23] selftests/bpf: adjust OP_EQ/OP_NE handling to use subranges for branch taken Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-08 18:22 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-08 19:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 22/23] selftests/bpf: add range x range test to reg_bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-27 18:13 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 23/23] selftests/bpf: add iter test requiring range x range logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-30 17:55 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 00/23] BPF register bounds logic and testing improvements Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-31 5:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-01 12:37 ` Paul Chaignon
2023-11-01 17:13 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-07 6:37 ` Harishankar Vishwanathan
2023-11-07 16:38 ` Paul Chaignon
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=1ed9ec950b35d6e53f22e63a21b7d02a8907b4a5.camel@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@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox