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 v5 2/4] selftests/bpf: check if mark_chain_precision() follows scalar ids
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:07:59 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230612160801.2804666-3-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230612160801.2804666-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
Check __mark_chain_precision() log to verify that scalars with same
IDs are marked as precise. Use several scenarios to test that
precision marks are propagated through:
- registers of scalar type with the same ID within one state;
- registers of scalar type with the same ID cross several states;
- registers of scalar type with the same ID cross several stack frames;
- stack slot of scalar type with the same ID;
- multiple scalar IDs are tracked independently.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c | 344 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 346 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
index 531621adef42..070a13833c3f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
#include "verifier_regalloc.skel.h"
#include "verifier_ringbuf.skel.h"
#include "verifier_runtime_jit.skel.h"
+#include "verifier_scalar_ids.skel.h"
#include "verifier_search_pruning.skel.h"
#include "verifier_sock.skel.h"
#include "verifier_spill_fill.skel.h"
@@ -150,6 +151,7 @@ void test_verifier_ref_tracking(void) { RUN(verifier_ref_tracking); }
void test_verifier_regalloc(void) { RUN(verifier_regalloc); }
void test_verifier_ringbuf(void) { RUN(verifier_ringbuf); }
void test_verifier_runtime_jit(void) { RUN(verifier_runtime_jit); }
+void test_verifier_scalar_ids(void) { RUN(verifier_scalar_ids); }
void test_verifier_search_pruning(void) { RUN(verifier_search_pruning); }
void test_verifier_sock(void) { RUN(verifier_sock); }
void test_verifier_spill_fill(void) { RUN(verifier_spill_fill); }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8a5203fb14ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+/* Check that precision marks propagate through scalar IDs.
+ * Registers r{0,1,2} have the same scalar ID at the moment when r0 is
+ * marked to be precise, this mark is immediately propagated to r{1,2}.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_same_state(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r2 = r0;"
+ /* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+ * precise as well because of shared IDs
+ */
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ "r3 += r0;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state, but mark propagates through state /
+ * parent state boundary.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 5 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 5: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0,r1,r2 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (05) goto pc+0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_cross_state(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r2 = r0;"
+ /* force checkpoint */
+ "goto +0;"
+ /* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+ * precise as well because of shared IDs
+ */
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ "r3 += r0;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state, but break one of the
+ * links, note that r1 is absent from regs=... in __msg below.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 5: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 4: (b7) r1 = 0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_same_state_broken_link(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r2 = r0;"
+ /* break link for r1, this is the only line that differs
+ * compared to the previous test
+ */
+ "r1 = 0;"
+ /* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+ * precise as well because of shared IDs
+ */
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ "r3 += r0;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Same as precision_same_state_broken_link, but with state /
+ * parent state boundary.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 6: (bf) r3 = r10")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r2 stack= before 5: (b7) r1 = 0")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0,r2 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 4: (05) goto pc+0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r2 stack= before 3: (bf) r2 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r0 stack=:")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (85) call bpf_ktime_get_ns")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_cross_state_broken_link(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == r2.id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r2 = r0;"
+ /* force checkpoint, although link between r1 and r{0,2} is
+ * broken by the next statement current precision tracking
+ * algorithm can't react to it and propagates mark for r1 to
+ * the parent state.
+ */
+ "goto +0;"
+ /* break link for r1, this is the only line that differs
+ * compared to precision_cross_state()
+ */
+ "r1 = 0;"
+ /* force r0 to be precise, this immediately marks r1 and r2 as
+ * precise as well because of shared IDs
+ */
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ "r3 += r0;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Check that precision marks propagate through scalar IDs.
+ * Use the same scalar ID in multiple stack frames, check that
+ * precision information is propagated up the call stack.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("11: (0f) r2 += r1")
+/* Current state */
+__msg("frame2: last_idx 11 first_idx 10 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("frame2: regs=r1 stack= before 10: (bf) r2 = r10")
+__msg("frame2: parent state regs=r1 stack=")
+/* frame1.r{6,7} are marked because mark_precise_scalar_ids()
+ * looks for all registers with frame2.r1.id in the current state
+ */
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r6,r7 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame2: last_idx 8 first_idx 8 subseq_idx 10")
+__msg("frame2: regs=r1 stack= before 8: (85) call pc+1")
+/* frame1.r1 is marked because of backtracking of call instruction */
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r1,r6,r7 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame1: last_idx 7 first_idx 6 subseq_idx 8")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1,r6,r7 stack= before 7: (bf) r7 = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1,r6 stack= before 6: (bf) r6 = r1")
+__msg("frame1: parent state regs=r1 stack=")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame1: last_idx 4 first_idx 4 subseq_idx 6")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 4: (85) call pc+1")
+__msg("frame0: parent state regs=r1,r6 stack=")
+/* Parent state */
+__msg("frame0: last_idx 3 first_idx 1 subseq_idx 4")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1,r6 stack= before 3: (bf) r6 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_many_frames(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == r6.id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "call precision_many_frames__foo;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_many_frames__foo(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* conflate one of the register numbers (r6) with outer frame,
+ * to verify that those are tracked independently
+ */
+ "r6 = r1;"
+ "r7 = r1;"
+ "call precision_many_frames__bar;"
+ "exit"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_many_frames__bar(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* force r1 to be precise, this immediately marks:
+ * - bar frame r1
+ * - foo frame r{1,6,7}
+ * - main frame r{1,6}
+ */
+ "r2 = r10;"
+ "r2 += r1;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Check that scalars with the same IDs are marked precise on stack as
+ * well as in registers.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+/* foo frame */
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8,-16 before 9: (bf) r2 = r10")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8,-16 before 8: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack=-8 before 7: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+__msg("frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 4: (85) call pc+2")
+/* main frame */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack=-8 before 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r1 stack= before 2: (bf) r1 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (57) r0 &= 255")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_stack(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r0 = random number up to 0xff */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ /* tie r0.id == r1.id == fp[-8].id */
+ "r1 = r0;"
+ "*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;"
+ "call precision_stack__foo;"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+static __naked __noinline __used
+void precision_stack__foo(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* conflate one of the register numbers (r6) with outer frame,
+ * to verify that those are tracked independently
+ */
+ "*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;"
+ "*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r1;"
+ /* force r1 to be precise, this immediately marks:
+ * - foo frame r1,fp{-8,-16}
+ * - main frame r1,fp{-8}
+ */
+ "r2 = r10;"
+ "r2 += r1;"
+ "exit"
+ ::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+/* Use two separate scalar IDs to check that these are propagated
+ * independently.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __log_level(2)
+/* r{6,7} */
+__msg("11: (0f) r3 += r7")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r6,r7 stack= before 10: (bf) r3 = r10")
+/* ... skip some insns ... */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r6,r7 stack= before 3: (bf) r7 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r6 stack= before 2: (bf) r6 = r0")
+/* r{8,9} */
+__msg("12: (0f) r3 += r9")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r8,r9 stack= before 11: (0f) r3 += r7")
+/* ... skip some insns ... */
+__msg("frame0: regs=r8,r9 stack= before 7: (bf) r9 = r0")
+__msg("frame0: regs=r0,r8 stack= before 6: (bf) r8 = r0")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__naked void precision_two_ids(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ /* r6 = random number up to 0xff
+ * r6.id == r7.id
+ */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ "r6 = r0;"
+ "r7 = r0;"
+ /* same, but for r{8,9} */
+ "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+ "r0 &= 0xff;"
+ "r8 = r0;"
+ "r9 = r0;"
+ /* clear r0 id */
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ /* force checkpoint */
+ "goto +0;"
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ /* force r7 to be precise, this also marks r6 */
+ "r3 += r7;"
+ /* force r9 to be precise, this also marks r8 */
+ "r3 += r9;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-12 16:07 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/4] verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 16:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/4] bpf: use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 19:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 16:07 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-06-12 16:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/4] bpf: verify scalar ids mapping in regsafe() using check_ids() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 19:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-12 21:01 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13 0:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-13 0:28 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-06-13 8:02 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-12 16:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/4] selftests/bpf: verify that check_ids() is used for scalars in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2023-06-12 17:40 ` Maxim Mikityanskiy
2023-06-12 19:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20230612160801.2804666-3-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