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
next prev 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