BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kuniyu@amazon.com,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:38:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240212143832.28838-3-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240212143832.28838-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

When comparing current and cached states verifier should consider
bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against
cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to
cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it's
callback_depth is smaller.

Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list
discussion [0].
The example is not a safe program: if loop_cb point (1) is followed by
loop_cb point (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).

    struct ctx {
    	__u64 a;
    	__u64 b;
    	__u64 c;
    };

    static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx)
    {
    	/* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first":
    	 * if ... == 1 goto
    	 * if ... == 2 goto
    	 * <default>
    	 */
    	switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
    	case 1:  /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break;
    	case 2:  /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break;
    	default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break;
    	}
    }

    SEC("tc")
    __failure
    __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
    int test(struct __sk_buff *skb)
    {
    	struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };

    	bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0);              /* 0 */
    	/* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */
    	if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
    		asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0");    /* 4 */
    	return 0;
    }

Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for
this example (notation: `(code point #) {<ctx->a>,<ctx->b>,<ctx->c>}`):

- (0) {7P,7,7}
  - (3) {7P,7,7}
    - (0) {7P,7,42} (checkpoint #1):
      - (3) {7P,7,42}
        - (0) {7P,7,42}   -> to end
      - (2) {7P,7,42}
        - (0) {7P,42,42}  -> to end
      - (1) {7P,7,42} (checkpoint #2)
        - (0) {42P,7P,42} -> to end
  - (2) {7P,7,7}
    - (0) {7P,42,7} safe (checkpoint #1)
  - (1) {7,7,7} safe (checkpoint #2)

Here checkpoint #2 has callback_depth of 1, meaning that it would
never reach state {42,42,7}.
While the last branch of the tree has callback_depth of 0, and thus
could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely.
This commit makes disallows such premature pruning.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/

Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ddaf09db1175..df99fcdbaa05 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -16715,6 +16715,9 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat
 {
 	int i;
 
+	if (old->callback_depth > cur->callback_depth)
+		return false;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
 		if (!regsafe(env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i],
 			     &env->idmap_scratch, exact))
-- 
2.43.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-12 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-12 14:38 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-12 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] selftests/bpf: update tcp_custom_syncookie to use scalar packet offset Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-12 23:58   ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-12 14:38 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-02-13  1:20   ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states Yonghong Song
2024-02-13 14:21     ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-13 18:14       ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-14 17:42         ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-16 14:27           ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-20  0:25             ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-20 17:13               ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-12 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic 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=20240212143832.28838-3-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=kuniyu@amazon.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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