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 v2 bpf-next 02/10] selftests/bpf: add stack access precision test
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:22:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231121002221.3687787-3-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231121002221.3687787-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Add a new selftests that validates precision tracking for stack access
instruction, using both r10-based and non-r10-based accesses. For
non-r10 ones we also make sure to have non-zero var_off to validate that
final stack offset is tracked properly in instruction history
information inside verifier.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
index 9b3844215a36..a796d282077a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
@@ -535,14 +535,68 @@ __naked int subprog_spill_into_parent_stack_slot_precise(void)
);
}
-__naked __noinline __used
-static __u64 subprog_with_checkpoint(void)
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("17: (0f) r1 += r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 17 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 16: (bf) r1 = r7")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 15: (27) r0 *= 4")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 14: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 13: (7b) *(u64 *)(r7 -8) = r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 12: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r8 +16)")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 11: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +16) = r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 10: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r7 -8)")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-16 before 9: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 8: (07) r8 += -32")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 7: (bf) r8 = r10")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 6: (07) r7 += -8")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 5: (bf) r7 = r10")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 21: (95) exit")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 20: (bf) r0 = r1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 4: (85) call pc+15")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 3: (bf) r1 = r6")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r6 stack= before 2: (b7) r6 = 1")
+__naked int stack_slot_aliases_precision(void)
{
asm volatile (
- "r0 = 0;"
- /* guaranteed checkpoint if BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ is used */
- "goto +0;"
+ "r6 = 1;"
+ /* pass r6 through r1 into subprog to get it back as r0;
+ * this whole chain will have to be marked as precise later
+ */
+ "r1 = r6;"
+ "call identity_subprog;"
+ /* let's setup two registers that are aliased to r10 */
+ "r7 = r10;"
+ "r7 += -8;" /* r7 = r10 - 8 */
+ "r8 = r10;"
+ "r8 += -32;" /* r8 = r10 - 32 */
+ /* now spill subprog's return value (a r6 -> r1 -> r0 chain)
+ * a few times through different stack pointer regs, making
+ * sure to use r10, r7, and r8 both in LDX and STX insns, and
+ * *importantly* also using a combination of const var_off and
+ * insn->off to validate that we record final stack slot
+ * correctly, instead of relying on just insn->off derivation,
+ * which is only valid for r10-based stack offset
+ */
+ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0;"
+ "r0 = *(u64 *)(r7 - 8);" /* r7 - 8 == r10 - 16 */
+ "*(u64 *)(r8 + 16) = r0;" /* r8 + 16 = r10 - 16 */
+ "r0 = *(u64 *)(r8 + 16);"
+ "*(u64 *)(r7 - 8) = r0;"
+ "r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 16);"
+ /* get ready to use r0 as an index into array to force precision */
+ "r0 *= 4;"
+ "r1 = %[vals];"
+ /* here r0->r1->r6 chain is forced to be precise and has to be
+ * propagated back to the beginning, including through the
+ * subprog call and all the stack spills and loads
+ */
+ "r1 += r0;"
+ "r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0);"
"exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm_ptr(vals)
+ : __clobber_common, "r6"
);
}
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-21 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-21 0:22 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/10] Complete BPF verifier precision tracking support for register spills Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/10] bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2023-11-21 0:42 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 02/10] selftests/bpf: add stack access precision test Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 03/10] bpf: fix check for attempt to corrupt spilled pointer Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 04/10] bpf: preserve STACK_ZERO slots on partial reg spills Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 05/10] selftests/bpf: validate STACK_ZERO is preserved on subreg spill Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:55 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 06/10] bpf: preserve constant zero when doing partial register restore Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 16:20 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 18:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 20:22 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 07/10] selftests/bpf: validate zero preservation for sub-slot loads Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 16:20 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 18:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 08/10] bpf: track aligned STACK_ZERO cases as imprecise spilled registers Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 20:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-11-21 22:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 09/10] selftests/bpf: validate precision logic in partial_stack_load_preserves_zeros Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 16:20 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-21 0:22 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/10] bpf: use common instruction history across all states Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-21 16:20 ` 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=20231121002221.3687787-3-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