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 16/17] bpf: prepare reg_set_min_max for second set of registers
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:37:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231102033759.2541186-17-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231102033759.2541186-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Similarly to is_branch_taken()-related refactorings, start preparing
reg_set_min_max() to handle more generic case of two non-const
registers. Start with renaming arguments to accommodate later addition
of second register as an input argument.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b077dd99b159..438bf96b1c2d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -14384,25 +14384,25 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg
* simply doing a BPF_K check.
* In JEQ/JNE cases we also adjust the var_off values.
*/
-static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
- struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg,
+static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg1,
+ struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg1,
u64 uval, u32 uval32,
u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
{
- struct tnum false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg->var_off);
- struct tnum false_64off = false_reg->var_off;
- struct tnum true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg->var_off);
- struct tnum true_64off = true_reg->var_off;
+ 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)uval;
s32 sval32 = (s32)uval32;
/* 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_reg and true_reg have the same type by construction, we
+ * Since false_reg1 and true_reg1 have the same type by construction, we
* only need to check one of them for pointerness.
*/
- if (__is_pointer_value(false, false_reg))
+ if (__is_pointer_value(false, false_reg1))
return;
switch (opcode) {
@@ -14417,20 +14417,20 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
*/
case BPF_JEQ:
if (is_jmp32) {
- __mark_reg32_known(true_reg, uval32);
- true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg->var_off);
+ __mark_reg32_known(true_reg1, uval32);
+ true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg1->var_off);
} else {
- ___mark_reg_known(true_reg, uval);
- true_64off = true_reg->var_off;
+ ___mark_reg_known(true_reg1, uval);
+ true_64off = true_reg1->var_off;
}
break;
case BPF_JNE:
if (is_jmp32) {
- __mark_reg32_known(false_reg, uval32);
- false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg->var_off);
+ __mark_reg32_known(false_reg1, uval32);
+ false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg1->var_off);
} else {
- ___mark_reg_known(false_reg, uval);
- false_64off = false_reg->var_off;
+ ___mark_reg_known(false_reg1, uval);
+ false_64off = false_reg1->var_off;
}
break;
case BPF_JSET:
@@ -14453,16 +14453,16 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
u32 false_umax = opcode == BPF_JGT ? uval32 : uval32 - 1;
u32 true_umin = opcode == BPF_JGT ? uval32 + 1 : uval32;
- false_reg->u32_max_value = min(false_reg->u32_max_value,
+ false_reg1->u32_max_value = min(false_reg1->u32_max_value,
false_umax);
- true_reg->u32_min_value = max(true_reg->u32_min_value,
+ true_reg1->u32_min_value = max(true_reg1->u32_min_value,
true_umin);
} else {
u64 false_umax = opcode == BPF_JGT ? uval : uval - 1;
u64 true_umin = opcode == BPF_JGT ? uval + 1 : uval;
- false_reg->umax_value = min(false_reg->umax_value, false_umax);
- true_reg->umin_value = max(true_reg->umin_value, true_umin);
+ false_reg1->umax_value = min(false_reg1->umax_value, false_umax);
+ true_reg1->umin_value = max(true_reg1->umin_value, true_umin);
}
break;
}
@@ -14473,14 +14473,14 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
s32 false_smax = opcode == BPF_JSGT ? sval32 : sval32 - 1;
s32 true_smin = opcode == BPF_JSGT ? sval32 + 1 : sval32;
- false_reg->s32_max_value = min(false_reg->s32_max_value, false_smax);
- true_reg->s32_min_value = max(true_reg->s32_min_value, true_smin);
+ false_reg1->s32_max_value = min(false_reg1->s32_max_value, false_smax);
+ true_reg1->s32_min_value = max(true_reg1->s32_min_value, true_smin);
} else {
s64 false_smax = opcode == BPF_JSGT ? sval : sval - 1;
s64 true_smin = opcode == BPF_JSGT ? sval + 1 : sval;
- false_reg->smax_value = min(false_reg->smax_value, false_smax);
- true_reg->smin_value = max(true_reg->smin_value, true_smin);
+ false_reg1->smax_value = min(false_reg1->smax_value, false_smax);
+ true_reg1->smin_value = max(true_reg1->smin_value, true_smin);
}
break;
}
@@ -14491,16 +14491,16 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
u32 false_umin = opcode == BPF_JLT ? uval32 : uval32 + 1;
u32 true_umax = opcode == BPF_JLT ? uval32 - 1 : uval32;
- false_reg->u32_min_value = max(false_reg->u32_min_value,
+ false_reg1->u32_min_value = max(false_reg1->u32_min_value,
false_umin);
- true_reg->u32_max_value = min(true_reg->u32_max_value,
+ true_reg1->u32_max_value = min(true_reg1->u32_max_value,
true_umax);
} else {
u64 false_umin = opcode == BPF_JLT ? uval : uval + 1;
u64 true_umax = opcode == BPF_JLT ? uval - 1 : uval;
- false_reg->umin_value = max(false_reg->umin_value, false_umin);
- true_reg->umax_value = min(true_reg->umax_value, true_umax);
+ false_reg1->umin_value = max(false_reg1->umin_value, false_umin);
+ true_reg1->umax_value = min(true_reg1->umax_value, true_umax);
}
break;
}
@@ -14511,14 +14511,14 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
s32 false_smin = opcode == BPF_JSLT ? sval32 : sval32 + 1;
s32 true_smax = opcode == BPF_JSLT ? sval32 - 1 : sval32;
- false_reg->s32_min_value = max(false_reg->s32_min_value, false_smin);
- true_reg->s32_max_value = min(true_reg->s32_max_value, true_smax);
+ false_reg1->s32_min_value = max(false_reg1->s32_min_value, false_smin);
+ true_reg1->s32_max_value = min(true_reg1->s32_max_value, true_smax);
} else {
s64 false_smin = opcode == BPF_JSLT ? sval : sval + 1;
s64 true_smax = opcode == BPF_JSLT ? sval - 1 : sval;
- false_reg->smin_value = max(false_reg->smin_value, false_smin);
- true_reg->smax_value = min(true_reg->smax_value, true_smax);
+ false_reg1->smin_value = max(false_reg1->smin_value, false_smin);
+ true_reg1->smax_value = min(true_reg1->smax_value, true_smax);
}
break;
}
@@ -14527,17 +14527,17 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
}
if (is_jmp32) {
- false_reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(false_64off),
+ false_reg1->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(false_64off),
tnum_subreg(false_32off));
- true_reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(true_64off),
+ true_reg1->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(true_64off),
tnum_subreg(true_32off));
- reg_bounds_sync(false_reg);
- reg_bounds_sync(true_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(false_reg1);
+ reg_bounds_sync(true_reg1);
} else {
- false_reg->var_off = false_64off;
- true_reg->var_off = true_64off;
- reg_bounds_sync(false_reg);
- reg_bounds_sync(true_reg);
+ false_reg1->var_off = false_64off;
+ true_reg1->var_off = true_64off;
+ reg_bounds_sync(false_reg1);
+ reg_bounds_sync(true_reg1);
}
}
--
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 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 13/17] bpf: move is_branch_taken() down Andrii Nakryiko
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 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
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=20231102033759.2541186-17-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