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>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 05/10] bpf: enforce precise retval range on program exit
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 16:36:15 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231129003620.1049610-6-andrii@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231129003620.1049610-1-andrii@kernel.org>
Similarly to subprog/callback logic, enforce return value of BPF program
using more precise umin/umax range.
We need to adjust a bunch of tests due to a changed format of an error
message.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 63 +++++++++----------
.../selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_fail.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/user_ringbuf_fail.c | 2 +-
.../bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c | 8 +--
.../bpf/progs/verifier_netfilter_retcode.c | 2 +-
.../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c | 2 +-
9 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 845f46f40e6b..0df8e53f2ecb 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -362,20 +362,23 @@ __printf(2, 3) static void verbose(void *private_data, const char *fmt, ...)
static void verbose_invalid_scalar(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
- struct tnum *range, const char *ctx,
+ struct bpf_retval_range range, const char *ctx,
const char *reg_name)
{
- char tn_buf[48];
+ bool unknown = true;
- verbose(env, "At %s the register %s ", ctx, reg_name);
- if (!tnum_is_unknown(reg->var_off)) {
- tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
- verbose(env, "has value %s", tn_buf);
- } else {
- verbose(env, "has unknown scalar value");
+ verbose(env, "At %s the register %s has", ctx, reg_name);
+ if (reg->umin_value > 0) {
+ verbose(env, " umin=%llu", reg->umin_value);
+ unknown = false;
}
- tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), *range);
- verbose(env, " should have been in %s\n", tn_buf);
+ if (reg->umax_value < U64_MAX) {
+ verbose(env, " umax=%llu", reg->umax_value);
+ unknown = false;
+ }
+ if (unknown)
+ verbose(env, " unknown scalar value");
+ verbose(env, " should have been in [%u, %u]\n", range.minval, range.maxval);
}
static bool type_may_be_null(u32 type)
@@ -9570,14 +9573,6 @@ static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const struct bpf_
return range.minval <= reg->umin_value && reg->umax_value <= range.maxval;
}
-static struct tnum retval_range_as_tnum(struct bpf_retval_range range)
-{
- if (range.minval == range.maxval)
- return tnum_const(range.minval);
- else
- return tnum_range(range.minval, range.maxval);
-}
-
static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
{
struct bpf_verifier_state *state = env->cur_state, *prev_st;
@@ -9614,9 +9609,8 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
/* enforce R0 return value range */
if (!retval_range_within(callee->callback_ret_range, r0)) {
- struct tnum range = retval_range_as_tnum(callee->callback_ret_range);
-
- verbose_invalid_scalar(env, r0, &range, "callback return", "R0");
+ verbose_invalid_scalar(env, r0, callee->callback_ret_range,
+ "callback return", "R0");
return -EINVAL;
}
if (!calls_callback(env, callee->callsite)) {
@@ -15002,7 +14996,8 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
struct tnum enforce_attach_type_range = tnum_unknown;
const struct bpf_prog *prog = env->prog;
struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
- struct tnum range = tnum_range(0, 1), const_0 = tnum_const(0);
+ struct bpf_retval_range range = retval_range(0, 1);
+ struct bpf_retval_range const_0 = retval_range(0, 0);
enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = resolve_prog_type(env->prog);
int err;
struct bpf_func_state *frame = env->cur_state->frame[0];
@@ -15050,8 +15045,8 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (!tnum_in(const_0, reg->var_off)) {
- verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, &const_0, "async callback", reg_name);
+ if (!retval_range_within(const_0, reg)) {
+ verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, const_0, "async callback", reg_name);
return -EINVAL;
}
return 0;
@@ -15077,14 +15072,14 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETSOCKNAME ||
env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET6_GETSOCKNAME ||
env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_UNIX_GETSOCKNAME)
- range = tnum_range(1, 1);
+ range = retval_range(1, 1);
if (env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET4_BIND ||
env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET6_BIND)
- range = tnum_range(0, 3);
+ range = retval_range(0, 3);
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB:
if (env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_CGROUP_INET_EGRESS) {
- range = tnum_range(0, 3);
+ range = retval_range(0, 3);
enforce_attach_type_range = tnum_range(2, 3);
}
break;
@@ -15097,13 +15092,13 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT:
if (!env->prog->aux->attach_btf_id)
return 0;
- range = tnum_const(0);
+ range = retval_range(0, 0);
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING:
switch (env->prog->expected_attach_type) {
case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
- range = tnum_const(0);
+ range = retval_range(0, 0);
break;
case BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP:
case BPF_MODIFY_RETURN:
@@ -15115,7 +15110,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
}
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP:
- range = tnum_range(SK_DROP, SK_PASS);
+ range = retval_range(SK_DROP, SK_PASS);
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM:
@@ -15129,12 +15124,12 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
/* Make sure programs that attach to void
* hooks don't try to modify return value.
*/
- range = tnum_range(1, 1);
+ range = retval_range(1, 1);
}
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER:
- range = tnum_range(NF_DROP, NF_ACCEPT);
+ range = retval_range(NF_DROP, NF_ACCEPT);
break;
case BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT:
/* freplace program can return anything as its return value
@@ -15150,8 +15145,8 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (!tnum_in(range, reg->var_off)) {
- verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, &range, "program exit", reg_name);
+ if (!retval_range_within(range, reg)) {
+ verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, range, "program exit", reg_name);
if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_LSM_CGROUP &&
prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM &&
!prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
index 575e7dd719c4..3d85d5695aba 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_assert.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ int check_assert_generic(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
}
SEC("?fentry/bpf_check")
-__failure __msg("At program exit the register R1 has value (0x40; 0x0)")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R1 has umin=64 umax=64")
int check_assert_with_return(void *ctx)
{
bpf_assert_with(!ctx, 64);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_fail.c
index 81ead7512ba2..114119cf9099 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions_fail.c
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ int reject_set_exception_cb_bad_ret1(void *ctx)
}
SEC("?fentry/bpf_check")
-__failure __msg("At program exit the register R1 has value (0x40; 0x0) should")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R1 has umin=64 umax=64 should")
int reject_set_exception_cb_bad_ret2(void *ctx)
{
bpf_throw(64);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c
index b512d6a6c75e..f80207480e8a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func15.c
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ __noinline int foo(unsigned int *v)
}
SEC("cgroup_skb/ingress")
-__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has value")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has ")
int global_func15(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
unsigned int v = 1;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c
index 226d33b5a05c..9000da1e2120 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int timer_cb_ret1(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_timer *timer)
}
SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
-__failure __msg("should have been in (0x0; 0x0)")
+__failure __msg("should have been in [0, 0]")
int BPF_PROG2(test_ret_1, int, a)
{
int key = 0;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_ringbuf_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_ringbuf_fail.c
index 03ee946c6bf7..11ab25c42c36 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_ringbuf_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/user_ringbuf_fail.c
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ invalid_drain_callback_return(struct bpf_dynptr *dynptr, void *context)
* not be able to write to that pointer.
*/
SEC("?raw_tp")
-__failure __msg("At callback return the register R0 has value")
+__failure __msg("At callback return the register R0 has ")
int user_ringbuf_callback_invalid_return(void *ctx)
{
bpf_user_ringbuf_drain(&user_ringbuf, invalid_drain_callback_return, NULL, 0);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
index d6c4a7f3f790..4655f01b24aa 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_cgroup_inv_retcode.c
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
SEC("cgroup/sock")
__description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1")
-__failure __msg("R0 has value (0x0; 0xffffffff)")
+__failure __msg("umax=4294967295 should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked void with_invalid_return_code_test1(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ __naked void with_invalid_return_code_test2(void)
SEC("cgroup/sock")
__description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test3")
-__failure __msg("R0 has value (0x0; 0x3)")
+__failure __msg("umax=3 should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked void with_invalid_return_code_test3(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ __naked void with_invalid_return_code_test4(void)
SEC("cgroup/sock")
__description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test5")
-__failure __msg("R0 has value (0x2; 0x0)")
+__failure __msg("umin=2 umax=2 should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked void with_invalid_return_code_test5(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ __naked void with_invalid_return_code_test6(void)
SEC("cgroup/sock")
__description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test7")
-__failure __msg("R0 has unknown scalar value")
+__failure __msg("R0 has unknown scalar value should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked void with_invalid_return_code_test7(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_netfilter_retcode.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_netfilter_retcode.c
index 353ae6da00e1..d8da9b749128 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_netfilter_retcode.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_netfilter_retcode.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ __naked void with_valid_return_code_test3(void)
SEC("netfilter")
__description("bpf_exit with invalid return code. test4")
-__failure __msg("R0 has value (0x2; 0x0)")
+__failure __msg("R0 has umin=2 umax=2 should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked void with_invalid_return_code_test4(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
index f0aa44bd3eb4..2e69d9c108fe 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ __msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 11: (b7) r0 = 0")
__msg("from 10 to 12: frame1: R0=scalar(umin=1001) R10=fp0 cb")
/* check that branch code path marks r0 as precise, before failing */
__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 9: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7")
-__msg("At callback return the register R0 has unknown scalar value should have been in (0x0; 0x1)")
+__msg("At callback return the register R0 has umin=1001 should have been in [0, 1]")
__naked int callback_precise_return_fail(void)
{
asm volatile (
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-29 0:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-29 0:36 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/10] BPF verifier retval logic fixes Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/10] bpf: provide correct register name for exception callback retval check Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 02/10] bpf: enforce precision of R0 on callback return Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 03/10] bpf: enforce exact retval range on subprog/callback exit Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 3:40 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 10:55 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-29 16:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-30 5:23 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-30 6:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 04/10] selftests/bpf: add selftest validating callback result is enforced Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2023-11-29 11:23 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 05/10] bpf: enforce precise retval range on program exit Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-29 16:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-30 5:29 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 06/10] bpf: unify async callback and program retval checks Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 07/10] bpf: enforce precision of R0 on program/async callback return Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 08/10] selftests/bpf: validate async callback return value check correctness Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 09/10] selftests/bpf: adjust global_func15 test to validate prog exit precision Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 0:36 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 10/10] bpf: simplify tnum output if a fully known constant Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-29 11:27 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/10] BPF verifier retval logic fixes Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-29 16:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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=20231129003620.1049610-6-andrii@kernel.org \
--to=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--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