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 v2 0/3] bpf: allow ctx writes using BPF_ST_MEM instruction
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2023 03:12:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230304011247.566040-1-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
Changes v1 -> v2, suggested by Alexei:
- Resolved conflict with recent commit:
6fcd486b3a0a ("bpf: Refactor RCU enforcement in the verifier");
- Variable `ctx_access` removed in function `convert_ctx_accesses()`;
- Macro `BPF_COPY_STORE` renamed to `BPF_EMIT_STORE` and fixed to
correctly extract original store instruction class from code.
Original message follows:
The function verifier.c:convert_ctx_access() applies some rewrites to BPF
instructions that read from or write to the BPF program context.
For example, the write instruction for the `struct bpf_sockopt::retval`
field:
*(u32 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct bpf_sockopt, retval)) = r2
Is transformed to:
*(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct bpf_sockopt_kern, tmp_reg)) = r9
r9 = *(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct bpf_sockopt_kern, current_task))
r9 = *(u64 *)(r9 + offsetof(struct task_struct, bpf_ctx))
*(u32 *)(r9 + offsetof(struct bpf_cg_run_ctx, retval)) = r2
r9 = *(u64 *)(r1 + offsetof(struct bpf_sockopt_kern, tmp_reg))
Currently, the verifier only supports such transformations for LDX
(memory-to-register read) and STX (register-to-memory write) instructions.
Error is reported for ST instructions (immediate-to-memory write).
This is fine because clang does not currently emit ST instructions.
However, new `-mcpu=v4` clang flag is planned, which would allow to emit
ST instructions (discussed in [1]).
This patch-set adjusts the verifier to support ST instructions in
`verifier.c:convert_ctx_access()`.
The patches #1 and #2 were previously shared as part of RFC [2]. The
changes compared to that RFC are:
- In patch #1, a bug in the handling of the
`struct __sk_buff::queue_mapping` field was fixed.
- Patch #3 is added, which is a set of disassembler-based test cases for
context access rewrites. The test cases cover all fields for which the
handling code is modified in patch #1.
[1] Propose some new instructions for -mcpu=v4
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/4bfe98be-5333-1c7e-2f6d-42486c8ec039@meta.com/
[2] RFC Support for BPF_ST instruction in LLVM C compiler
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221231163122.1360813-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[3] v1
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230302225507.3413720-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
Eduard Zingerman (3):
bpf: allow ctx writes using BPF_ST_MEM instruction
selftests/bpf: test if pointer type is tracked for BPF_ST_MEM
selftests/bpf: Disassembler tests for verifier.c:convert_ctx_access()
kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 49 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 110 +--
net/core/filter.c | 79 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/disasm.c | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/disasm.h | 1 +
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c | 917 ++++++++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ctx.c | 11 -
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 23 +
9 files changed, 1069 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
create mode 120000 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/disasm.c
create mode 120000 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/disasm.h
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ctx_rewrite.c
--
2.39.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-03-04 1:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-04 1:12 Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-03-04 1:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: allow ctx writes using BPF_ST_MEM instruction Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-04 1:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] selftests/bpf: test if pointer type is tracked for BPF_ST_MEM Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-04 1:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Disassembler tests for verifier.c:convert_ctx_access() Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-04 5:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: allow ctx writes using BPF_ST_MEM instruction patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20230304011247.566040-1-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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox