From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<martin.lau@kernel.org>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 13/17] bpf: move is_branch_taken() down
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:37:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231102033759.2541186-14-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231102033759.2541186-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Move is_branch_taken() slightly down. In subsequent patched we'll need
both flip_opcode() and is_pkt_ptr_branch_taken() for is_branch_taken(),
but instead of sprinkling forward declarations around, it makes more
sense to move is_branch_taken() lower below is_pkt_ptr_branch_taken(),
and also keep it closer to very tightly related reg_set_min_max(), as
they are two critical parts of the same SCALAR range tracking logic.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 5e722aaef7ed..c5d187d43fa1 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -14337,48 +14337,6 @@ static int is_branch64_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *r
return -1;
}
-/* compute branch direction of the expression "if (<reg1> opcode <reg2>) goto target;"
- * and return:
- * 1 - branch will be taken and "goto target" will be executed
- * 0 - branch will not be taken and fall-through to next insn
- * -1 - unknown. Example: "if (reg1 < 5)" is unknown when register value
- * range [0,10]
- */
-static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg2,
- u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
-{
- struct tnum reg2_tnum = is_jmp32 ? tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off) : reg2->var_off;
- u64 val;
-
- if (!tnum_is_const(reg2_tnum))
- return -1;
- val = reg2_tnum.value;
-
- if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg1)) {
- if (!reg_not_null(reg1))
- return -1;
-
- /* If pointer is valid tests against zero will fail so we can
- * use this to direct branch taken.
- */
- if (val != 0)
- return -1;
-
- switch (opcode) {
- case BPF_JEQ:
- return 0;
- case BPF_JNE:
- return 1;
- default:
- return -1;
- }
- }
-
- if (is_jmp32)
- return is_branch32_taken(reg1, reg2, opcode);
- return is_branch64_taken(reg1, reg2, opcode);
-}
-
static int flip_opcode(u32 opcode)
{
/* How can we transform "a <op> b" into "b <op> a"? */
@@ -14440,6 +14398,48 @@ static int is_pkt_ptr_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
return -1;
}
+/* compute branch direction of the expression "if (<reg1> opcode <reg2>) goto target;"
+ * and return:
+ * 1 - branch will be taken and "goto target" will be executed
+ * 0 - branch will not be taken and fall-through to next insn
+ * -1 - unknown. Example: "if (reg1 < 5)" is unknown when register value
+ * range [0,10]
+ */
+static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg2,
+ u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
+{
+ struct tnum reg2_tnum = is_jmp32 ? tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off) : reg2->var_off;
+ u64 val;
+
+ if (!tnum_is_const(reg2_tnum))
+ return -1;
+ val = reg2_tnum.value;
+
+ if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg1)) {
+ if (!reg_not_null(reg1))
+ return -1;
+
+ /* If pointer is valid tests against zero will fail so we can
+ * use this to direct branch taken.
+ */
+ if (val != 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ switch (opcode) {
+ case BPF_JEQ:
+ return 0;
+ case BPF_JNE:
+ return 1;
+ default:
+ return -1;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (is_jmp32)
+ return is_branch32_taken(reg1, reg2, opcode);
+ return is_branch64_taken(reg1, reg2, opcode);
+}
+
/* Adjusts the register min/max values in the case that the dst_reg is the
* variable register that we are working on, and src_reg is a constant or we're
* simply doing a BPF_K check.
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-02 3:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-02 3:37 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 00/17] BPF register bounds logic and testing improvements Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 01/17] selftests/bpf: fix RELEASE=1 build for tc_opts Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 02/17] selftests/bpf: satisfy compiler by having explicit return in btf test Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 03/17] bpf: derive smin/smax from umin/max bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 04/17] bpf: derive smin32/smax32 from umin32/umax32 bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 05/17] bpf: derive subreg bounds from full bounds when upper 32 bits are constant Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 06/17] bpf: add special smin32/smax32 derivation from 64-bit bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 07/17] bpf: improve deduction of 64-bit bounds from 32-bit bounds Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 14:39 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-02 16:17 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-03 3:43 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 08/17] bpf: try harder to deduce register bounds from different numeric domains Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 09/17] bpf: drop knowledge-losing __reg_combine_{32,64}_into_{64,32} logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 15:14 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 10/17] selftests/bpf: BPF register range bounds tester Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 11/17] bpf: rename is_branch_taken reg arguments to prepare for the second one Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 15:15 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 12/17] bpf: generalize is_branch_taken() to work with two registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 15:19 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-02 3:37 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 14/17] bpf: generalize is_branch_taken to handle all conditional jumps in one place Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 15/17] bpf: unify 32-bit and 64-bit is_branch_taken logic Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 16/17] bpf: prepare reg_set_min_max for second set of registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 3:37 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 17/17] bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle two sets of two registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-02 16:10 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 00/17] BPF register bounds logic and testing improvements 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=20231102033759.2541186-14-andrii@kernel.org \
--to=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