From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kkd@meta.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Manu Bretelle <chantra@meta.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf v2 0/2] Fix for raw_tp PTR_MAYBE_NULL unmarking
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 14:31:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241205223152.2434683-1-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
A production BPF program had the following code produced by LLVM.
r0 = 1024;
r1 = ...; // r1 = trusted_or_null_(id=1)
r3 = r1; // r3 = trusted_or_null_(id=1) r1 = trusted_or_null_(id=1)
r3 += r0; // r3 = trusted_or_null_(id=1, off=1024)
if r1 == 0 goto pc+X;
After cb4158ce8ec8 ("bpf: Mark raw_tp arguments with PTR_MAYBE_NULL"),
the production BPF program began throwing a warning in the verifier
because for the code above, when unmarking null mark from r1, the
verifier will notice another register r3 with same id but off != 0,
which is unexpected, since offset modification on PTR_MAYBE_NULL is not
permitted, but the aforementioned commit relaxed that restriction to
preserve compatibility with non-NULL raw_tp args.
Provide a fix to suppress the warning for raw_tp args. We will follow up
with a more generic fix to handle such patterns for all pointer types in
the verifier, which currently involves playing whack-a-mole with
suppressing such LLVM optimizations and reworking BPF programs to avoid
verifier errors.
Changelog:
----------
v1 -> v2
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20241204024154.21386-1-memxor@gmail.com
* Fix eager unmarking bug (Eduard)
* Generalize approach, always unmark NULL when off == 0 is checked
* Make NULL check noop if operand has off != 0
* Do not reset id when treating as noop
* Trim comment (Alexei)
* Adjust selftests
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi (2):
bpf: Suppress warning for non-zero off raw_tp arg NULL check
selftests/bpf: Add raw_tp tests for PTR_MAYBE_NULL marking
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 38 +++++++--
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_null.c | 6 ++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/raw_tp_null_fail.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/raw_tp_null_fail.c
base-commit: 5a6ea7022ff4d2a65ae328619c586d6a8909b48b
--
2.43.5
next reply other threads:[~2024-12-05 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-05 22:31 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2024-12-05 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/2] bpf: Suppress warning for non-zero off raw_tp arg NULL check Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-06 0:00 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-05 22:31 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add raw_tp tests for PTR_MAYBE_NULL marking Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-06 0:08 ` 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=20241205223152.2434683-1-memxor@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chantra@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kkd@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