[PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[Yazhou Tang]

From: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com>

This patch introduces interval analysis (range tracking) and tnum
analysis (bitwise tracking) for both signed and unsigned division
operations in the BPF verifier.

The BPF verifier currently lacks support for value tracking on BPF_DIV
instructions, which can lead to false positives during verification of
BPF programs that utilize division instructions.

According to the BPF instruction set[1], the instruction's offset field
(`insn->off`) is used to distinguish between signed (`off == 1`) and
unsigned division (`off == 0`). Moreover, we also follow the BPF division
semantics to handle special cases, such as division by zero and signed
division overflow.

- UDIV: dst = (src != 0) ? (dst / src) : 0
- SDIV: dst = (src == 0) ? 0 : ((src == -1 && dst == LLONG_MIN) ? LLONG_MIN : (dst / src))

Here is the overview of the changes made in this patch:

1. For interval analysis:
   - Added `scalar_min_max_udiv` and `scalar32_min_max_udiv` to update
     umin/umax bounds, which is straightforward.
   - Added `scalar_min_max_sdiv` and `scalar32_min_max_sdiv` to update
     smin/smax bounds. It handles non-monotonic intervals by decomposing
     the divisor range into negative, zero, and positive sub-ranges, and
     computing the result range for each sub-range separately. Finally,
     it combines the results to get the final smin/smax bounds.
2. For tnum analysis, we referred to LLVM's KnownBits implementation[2]
   and the recent research on abstract interpretation of division[3]:
   - Added `tnum_udiv` to compute the tnum for unsigned division. It
     calculates the maximum possible result based on the maximum values
     of the dividend tnum and the minimum values of the divisor tnum,
     then constructs the resulting tnum accordingly. We have prove its
     soundness using Rocq Prover[4].
   - Added `tnum_sdiv` to compute the tnum for signed division. It splits
     the operands into positive and negative components, then performs
     calculation on absolute values using `tnum_udiv`, finally unions
     the results to ensure soundness.
3. Also updated existing selftests based on the expected BPF_DIV behavior.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst
[2] https://llvm.org/doxygen/KnownBits_8cpp_source.html
[3] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3728905
[4] https://github.com/shenghaoyuan/open-verified-artifacts/tree/main/tnum

Co-developed-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com>
Co-developed-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com>
---
Hello everyone,

Thanks for reviewing our patch! This patch adds interval and tnum analysis
for both signed and unsigned BPF_DIV instructions in the BPF verifier.

We also have implemented interval and tnum analysis for BPF_MOD
instruction, which is closely related to division. However, to keep the
patch size manageable and facilitate easier review, we have decided to
submit the BPF_MOD related changes in a separate patch following this one.

Best,

Yazhou Tang

 include/linux/tnum.h                          |   4 +
 kernel/bpf/tnum.c                             | 159 ++++++++++++-
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 225 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c    |   7 +-
 4 files changed, 391 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/tnum.h b/include/linux/tnum.h
index c52b862dad45..fd00deb2cb88 100644
--- a/include/linux/tnum.h
+++ b/include/linux/tnum.h
@@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ struct tnum tnum_or(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
 struct tnum tnum_xor(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
 /* Multiply two tnums, return @a * @b */
 struct tnum tnum_mul(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
+/* Unsigned division, return @a / @b */
+struct tnum tnum_udiv(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
+/* Signed division, return @a / @b */
+struct tnum tnum_sdiv(struct tnum a, struct tnum b, bool alu32);
 
 /* Return true if the known bits of both tnums have the same value */
 bool tnum_overlap(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
index f8e70e9c3998..d115528da6a6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
@@ -12,6 +12,13 @@
 #define TNUM(_v, _m)	(struct tnum){.value = _v, .mask = _m}
 /* A completely unknown value */
 const struct tnum tnum_unknown = { .value = 0, .mask = -1 };
+/* Tnum bottom */
+const struct tnum tnum_bottom = { .value = -1, .mask = -1 };
+
+static bool __tnum_eqb(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
+{
+	return a.value == b.value && a.mask == b.mask;
+}
 
 struct tnum tnum_const(u64 value)
 {
@@ -83,9 +90,23 @@ struct tnum tnum_sub(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 	return TNUM(dv & ~mu, mu);
 }
 
+/* __tnum_neg_width: tnum negation with given bit width.
+ * @a: the tnum to be negated.
+ * @width: the bit width to perform negation, 32 or 64.
+ */
+static struct tnum __tnum_neg_width(struct tnum a, int width)
+{
+	if (width == 32)
+		return tnum_sub(TNUM(U32_MAX, 0), a);
+	else if (width == 64)
+		return tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a);
+	else
+		return tnum_unknown;
+}
+
 struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a)
 {
-	return tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a);
+	return __tnum_neg_width(a, 64);
 }
 
 struct tnum tnum_and(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
@@ -167,6 +188,138 @@ bool tnum_overlap(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 	return (a.value & mu) == (b.value & mu);
 }
 
+/* __get_mask: get a mask that covers all bits up to the highest set bit in x.
+ * For example:
+ *   x = 0b0000...0000 -> return 0b0000...0000
+ *   x = 0b0000...0001 -> return 0b0000...0001
+ *   x = 0b0000...1001 -> return 0b0000...1111
+ *   x = 0b1111...1111 -> return 0b1111...1111
+ */
+static u64 __get_mask(u64 x)
+{
+	int width = 0;
+
+	if (x > 0)
+		width = 64 - __builtin_clzll(x);
+	if (width == 0)
+		return 0;
+	else if (width == 64)
+		return U64_MAX;
+	else
+		return (1ULL << width) - 1;
+}
+
+struct tnum tnum_udiv(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
+{
+	if (tnum_is_const(b)) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
+		if (b.value == 0)
+			return TNUM(0, 0);
+		if (tnum_is_const(a))
+			return TNUM(a.value / b.value, 0);
+	}
+
+	if (b.value == 0)
+		return tnum_unknown;
+
+	u64 a_max = a.value + a.mask;
+	u64 b_min = b.value;
+	u64 max_res = a_max / b_min;
+	return TNUM(0, __get_mask(max_res));
+}
+
+static u64 __msb(u64 x, int width)
+{
+	return x & (1ULL << (width - 1));
+}
+
+static struct tnum __tnum_get_positive(struct tnum x, int width)
+{
+	if (__msb(x.value, width))
+		return tnum_bottom;
+	if (__msb(x.mask, width))
+		return TNUM(x.value, x.mask & ~(1ULL << (width - 1)));
+	return x;
+}
+
+static struct tnum __tnum_get_negative(struct tnum x, int width)
+{
+	if (__msb(x.value, width))
+		return x;
+	if (__msb(x.mask, width))
+		return TNUM(x.value | (1ULL << (width - 1)), x.mask & ~(1ULL << (width - 1)));
+	return tnum_bottom;
+}
+
+static struct tnum __tnum_abs(struct tnum x, int width)
+{
+	if (__msb(x.value, width))
+		return __tnum_neg_width(x, width);
+	else
+		return x;
+}
+
+/* __tnum_sdiv, a helper for tnum_sdiv.
+ * @a: tnum a, a's sign is fixed, __msb(a.mask) == 0
+ * @b: tnum b, b's sign is fixed, __msb(b.mask) == 0
+ *
+ * This function reuses tnum_udiv by operating on the absolute values of a and b,
+ * and then adjusting the sign of the result based on C's division rules.
+ * Here we don't need to specially handle the case of [S64_MIN / -1], because
+ * after __tnum_abs, S64_MIN becomes (S64_MAX + 1), and the behavior of
+ * unsigned [(S64_MAX + 1) / 1] is normal.
+ */
+static struct tnum __tnum_sdiv(struct tnum a, struct tnum b, int width)
+{
+	if (__tnum_eqb(a, tnum_bottom) || __tnum_eqb(b, tnum_bottom))
+		return tnum_bottom;
+
+	struct tnum a_abs = __tnum_abs(a, width);
+	struct tnum b_abs = __tnum_abs(b, width);
+	struct tnum res_abs = tnum_udiv(a_abs, b_abs);
+
+	if (__msb(a.value, width) == __msb(b.value, width))
+		return res_abs;
+	else
+		return __tnum_neg_width(res_abs, width);
+}
+
+struct tnum tnum_sdiv(struct tnum a, struct tnum b, bool alu32)
+{
+	if (tnum_is_const(b)) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
+		if (b.value == 0)
+			return TNUM(0, 0);
+		if (tnum_is_const(a)) {
+			/* BPF div specification: S32_MIN / -1 = S32_MIN */
+			if (alu32 && (u32)a.value == (u32)S32_MIN && (u32)b.value == (u32)-1)
+				return TNUM((u32)S32_MIN, 0);
+			/* BPF div specification: S64_MIN / -1 = S64_MIN */
+			if (!alu32 && a.value == S64_MIN && b.value == (u64)-1)
+				return TNUM((u64)S64_MIN, 0);
+			s64 sval = (s64)a.value / (s64)b.value;
+			return TNUM((u64)sval, 0);
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (b.value == 0)
+		return tnum_unknown;
+
+	int width = alu32 ? 32 : 64;
+	struct tnum a_pos = __tnum_get_positive(a, width);
+	struct tnum a_neg = __tnum_get_negative(a, width);
+	struct tnum b_pos = __tnum_get_positive(b, width);
+	struct tnum b_neg = __tnum_get_negative(b, width);
+
+	struct tnum res_pos = __tnum_sdiv(a_pos, b_pos, width);
+	struct tnum res_neg = __tnum_sdiv(a_neg, b_neg, width);
+	struct tnum res_mix1 = __tnum_sdiv(a_pos, b_neg, width);
+	struct tnum res_mix2 = __tnum_sdiv(a_neg, b_pos, width);
+
+	return tnum_union(tnum_union(res_pos, res_neg),
+					tnum_union(res_mix1, res_mix2));
+}
+
 /* Note that if a and b disagree - i.e. one has a 'known 1' where the other has
  * a 'known 0' - this will return a 'known 1' for that bit.
  */
@@ -186,6 +339,10 @@ struct tnum tnum_intersect(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
  */
 struct tnum tnum_union(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 {
+	if (__tnum_eqb(a, tnum_bottom))
+		return b;
+	if (__tnum_eqb(b, tnum_bottom))
+		return a;
 	u64 v = a.value & b.value;
 	u64 mu = (a.value ^ b.value) | a.mask | b.mask;
 
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d6b8a77fbe3b..df04a35153ef 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -15076,6 +15076,218 @@ static void scalar_min_max_mul(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 	}
 }
 
+static void __scalar32_min_max_join(s32 *res_min, s32 *res_max, s32 x_min, s32 x_max)
+{
+	*res_min = min(*res_min, x_min);
+	*res_max = max(*res_max, x_max);
+}
+
+static void __scalar_min_max_join(s64 *res_min, s64 *res_max, s64 x_min, s64 x_max)
+{
+	*res_min = min(*res_min, x_min);
+	*res_max = max(*res_max, x_max);
+}
+
+static void scalar32_min_max_udiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+				struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
+{
+	u32 *dst_umin = &dst_reg->u32_min_value;
+	u32 *dst_umax = &dst_reg->u32_max_value;
+	u32 umin_val = src_reg->u32_min_value;
+	u32 umax_val = src_reg->u32_max_value;
+
+	if (umin_val == 0) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
+		 * 1. If umin_val == umax_val == 0, i.e. divisor is certainly 0,
+		 * then the result must be 0, [a,b] / [0,0] = [0,0].
+		 * 2. If umin_val == 0 && umax_val != 0, then dst_umin = x / 0 = 0,
+		 * dst_umax = dst_umax / 1, remains unchanged, [a,b] / [0,x] = [0,b].
+		 */
+		*dst_umin = 0;
+		if (umax_val == 0)
+			*dst_umax = 0;
+	} else {
+		*dst_umin = *dst_umin / umax_val;
+		*dst_umax = *dst_umax / umin_val;
+	}
+
+	/* Reset signed interval to TOP. */
+	dst_reg->s32_min_value = S32_MIN;
+	dst_reg->s32_max_value = S32_MAX;
+}
+
+static void scalar_min_max_udiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+				struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
+{
+	u64 *dst_umin = &dst_reg->umin_value;
+	u64 *dst_umax = &dst_reg->umax_value;
+	u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value;
+	u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value;
+
+	if (umin_val == 0) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
+		 * 1. If umin_val == umax_val == 0, i.e. divisor is certainly 0,
+		 * then the result must be 0, [a,b] / [0,0] = [0,0].
+		 * 2. If umin_val == 0 && umax_val != 0, then dst_umin = x / 0 = 0,
+		 * dst_umax = dst_umax / 1, remains unchanged, [a,b] / [0,x] = [0,b].
+		 */
+		*dst_umin = 0;
+		if (umax_val == 0)
+			*dst_umax = 0;
+	} else {
+		*dst_umin = *dst_umin / umax_val;
+		*dst_umax = *dst_umax / umin_val;
+	}
+
+	/* Reset signed interval to TOP. */
+	dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
+	dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;
+}
+
+static s32 __bpf_sdiv32(s32 a, s32 b)
+{
+	/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
+	if (unlikely(b == 0))
+		return 0;
+	/* BPF mod specification: S32_MIN / -1 = S32_MIN */
+	if (unlikely(a == S32_MIN && b == -1))
+		return S32_MIN;
+	return a / b;
+}
+
+/* The divisor interval does not cross 0,
+ * i.e. src_min and src_max have same sign.
+ */
+static void __sdiv32_range(s32 dst_min, s32 dst_max, s32 src_min, s32 src_max,
+				s32 *res_min, s32 *res_max)
+{
+	s32 tmp_res[4] = {
+		__bpf_sdiv32(dst_min, src_min),
+		__bpf_sdiv32(dst_min, src_max),
+		__bpf_sdiv32(dst_max, src_min),
+		__bpf_sdiv32(dst_max, src_max)
+	};
+
+	*res_min = min_array(tmp_res, 4);
+	*res_max = max_array(tmp_res, 4);
+}
+
+static void scalar32_min_max_sdiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+				struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
+{
+	u32 *dst_smin = &dst_reg->s32_min_value;
+	u32 *dst_smax = &dst_reg->s32_max_value;
+	u32 smin_val = src_reg->s32_min_value;
+	u32 smax_val = src_reg->s32_max_value;
+	s32 res_min, res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max;
+
+	if (smin_val <= 0 && smax_val >= 0) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
+		 * Set initial result to 0, as 0 is in divisor interval.
+		 */
+		res_min = 0;
+		res_max = 0;
+		/* negative divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [b_min,-1] */
+		if (smin_val < 0) {
+			__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, -1,
+					&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
+			__scalar32_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
+		}
+		/* positive divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [1,b_max] */
+		if (smax_val > 0) {
+			__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, 1, smax_val,
+					&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
+			__scalar32_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
+		}
+	} else {
+		__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, smax_val,
+			&res_min, &res_max);
+	}
+
+	/* BPF mod specification: S32_MIN / -1 = S32_MIN */
+	if (*dst_smin == S32_MIN && smin_val <= -1 && smax_val >= -1)
+		res_min = S32_MIN;
+
+	*dst_smin = res_min;
+	*dst_smax = res_max;
+
+	/* Reset unsigned interval to TOP. */
+	dst_reg->u32_min_value = 0;
+	dst_reg->u32_max_value = U32_MAX;
+}
+
+static s64 __bpf_sdiv(s64 a, s64 b)
+{
+	/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
+	if (unlikely(b == 0))
+		return 0;
+	/* BPF div specification: S64_MIN / -1 = S64_MIN */
+	if (unlikely(a == S64_MIN && b == -1))
+		return S64_MIN;
+	return a / b;
+}
+
+/* The divisor interval does not cross 0,
+ * i.e. src_min and src_max have same sign.
+ */
+static void __sdiv_range(s64 dst_min, s64 dst_max, s64 src_min, s64 src_max,
+				s64 *res_min, s64 *res_max)
+{
+	s64 tmp_res[4] = {
+		__bpf_sdiv(dst_min, src_min),
+		__bpf_sdiv(dst_min, src_max),
+		__bpf_sdiv(dst_max, src_min),
+		__bpf_sdiv(dst_max, src_max)
+	};
+
+	*res_min = min_array(tmp_res, 4);
+	*res_max = max_array(tmp_res, 4);
+}
+
+static void scalar_min_max_sdiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+				struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
+{
+	s64 *dst_smin = &dst_reg->smin_value;
+	s64 *dst_smax = &dst_reg->smax_value;
+	s64 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value;
+	s64 smax_val = src_reg->smax_value;
+	s64 res_min, res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max;
+
+	if (smin_val <= 0 && smax_val >= 0) {
+		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
+		 * Set initial result to 0, as 0 is in divisor interval.
+		 */
+		res_min = 0;
+		res_max = 0;
+		/* negative divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [b_min,-1] */
+		if (smin_val < 0) {
+			__sdiv_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, -1,
+					&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
+			__scalar_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
+		}
+		/* positive divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [1,b_max] */
+		if (smax_val > 0) {
+			__sdiv_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, 1, smax_val,
+					&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
+			__scalar_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
+		}
+	} else {
+		__sdiv_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, smax_val,
+			&res_min, &res_max);
+	}
+
+	/* BPF mod specification: S64_MIN / -1 = S64_MIN */
+	if (*dst_smin == S64_MIN && smin_val <= -1 && smax_val >= -1)
+		res_min = S64_MIN;
+
+	*dst_smin = res_min;
+	*dst_smax = res_max;
+
+	/* Reset unsigned interval to TOP. */
+	dst_reg->umin_value = 0;
+	dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX;
+}
+
 static void scalar32_min_max_and(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 				 struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
 {
@@ -15479,6 +15691,7 @@ static bool is_safe_to_compute_dst_reg_range(struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	case BPF_XOR:
 	case BPF_OR:
 	case BPF_MUL:
+	case BPF_DIV:
 		return true;
 
 	/* Shift operators range is only computable if shift dimension operand
@@ -15504,6 +15717,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 				      struct bpf_reg_state src_reg)
 {
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
+	s16 off = insn->off;
 	bool alu32 = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64);
 	int ret;
 
@@ -15555,6 +15769,17 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		scalar32_min_max_mul(dst_reg, &src_reg);
 		scalar_min_max_mul(dst_reg, &src_reg);
 		break;
+	case BPF_DIV:
+		if (off == 1) {
+			dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sdiv(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off, alu32);
+			scalar32_min_max_sdiv(dst_reg, &src_reg);
+			scalar_min_max_sdiv(dst_reg, &src_reg);
+		} else {
+			dst_reg->var_off = tnum_udiv(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
+			scalar32_min_max_udiv(dst_reg, &src_reg);
+			scalar_min_max_udiv(dst_reg, &src_reg);
+		}
+		break;
 	case BPF_AND:
 		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_and(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
 		scalar32_min_max_and(dst_reg, &src_reg);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
index 2129e4353fd9..4d8273c258d5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_illegal_alu.c
@@ -173,14 +173,15 @@ __naked void flow_keys_illegal_variable_offset_alu(void)
 	asm volatile("					\
 	r6 = r1;					\
 	r7 = *(u64*)(r6 + %[flow_keys_off]);		\
-	r8 = 8;						\
-	r8 /= 1;					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r8 = r0;					\
 	r8 &= 8;					\
 	r7 += r8;					\
 	r0 = *(u64*)(r7 + 0);				\
 	exit;						\
 "	:
-	: __imm_const(flow_keys_off, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys))
+	: __imm_const(flow_keys_off, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys)),
+	  __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
-- 
2.52.0

[PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF_DIV analysis

[Yazhou Tang]

From: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com>

Now BPF_DIV has value tracking support via interval and tnum analysis.
This patch adds selftests to cover various cases of signed and
unsigned division operations, including edge cases like division by
zero and signed division overflow.

Specifically, these selftests are based on dead code elimination: If
the BPF verifier can precisely analyze the result of a division
operation, it can prune the path that leads to an error (here we use
invalid memory access as the error case), allowing the program to pass
verification.

Co-developed-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com>
Signed-off-by: Shenghao Yuan <shenghaoyuan0928@163.com>
Co-developed-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Tianci Cao <ziye@zju.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Yazhou Tang <tangyazhou518@outlook.com>
---
Hello everyone,

Thanks for reviewing our patch! This patch adds the necessary selftests
for the BPF_DIV range tracking enhancements.

Regarding the test implementation: I noticed multiple patterns for BPF
selftests (e.g., out-of-bounds read in `verifier_bounds.c`, illegal
return value in `verifier_mul.c` and `verifier_precision.v`). I have
opted for the invalid memory access approach with `__msg` label as it
is concise and straightforward.

If the community prefers these tests to be integrated into existing
files or follow a different pattern, please let me know and I will
gladly refactor them.

Best,

Yazhou Tang

 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c       |   2 +
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_div_bounds.c | 404 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_div_bounds.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
index 5829ffd70f8f..d892ad7b688e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
 #include "verifier_direct_packet_access.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_direct_stack_access_wraparound.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_div0.skel.h"
+#include "verifier_div_bounds.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_div_overflow.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_global_subprogs.skel.h"
 #include "verifier_global_ptr_args.skel.h"
@@ -174,6 +175,7 @@ void test_verifier_d_path(void)               { RUN(verifier_d_path); }
 void test_verifier_direct_packet_access(void) { RUN(verifier_direct_packet_access); }
 void test_verifier_direct_stack_access_wraparound(void) { RUN(verifier_direct_stack_access_wraparound); }
 void test_verifier_div0(void)                 { RUN(verifier_div0); }
+void test_verifier_div_bounds(void)           { RUN(verifier_div_bounds); }
 void test_verifier_div_overflow(void)         { RUN(verifier_div_overflow); }
 void test_verifier_global_subprogs(void)      { RUN(verifier_global_subprogs); }
 void test_verifier_global_ptr_args(void)      { RUN(verifier_global_ptr_args); }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_div_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_div_bounds.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..b6f790fc8b63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_div_bounds.c
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <limits.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+/* This file contains unit tests for signed/unsigned division
+ * operations, focusing on verifying whether BPF verifier's
+ * tnum and interval analysis modules soundly and precisely
+ * compute the results.
+ */
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("UDIV32, non-zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 /= w2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void udiv32_non_zero(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w2 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 &= 1;					\
+	w2 |= 2;					\
+	w1 /= w2;					\
+	if w1 <= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	/* Precise analysis will prune the path with error code */\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("UDIV32, zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 /= w2 {{.*}}; R1=0 R2=0")
+__naked void udiv32_zero_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 = 0;						\
+	w1 /= w2;					\
+	if w1 == 0 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("UDIV64, non-zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 /= r2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void udiv64_non_zero(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r2 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 &= 1;					\
+	r2 |= 2;					\
+	r1 /= r2;					\
+	if r1 <= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("UDIV64, zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 /= r2 {{.*}}; R1=0 R2=0")
+__naked void udiv64_zero_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 = 0;						\
+	r1 /= r2;					\
+	if r1 == 0 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, non-zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 s/= w2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void sdiv32_non_zero(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w2 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 &= 1;					\
+	w2 |= 2;					\
+	w1 s/= w2;					\
+	if w1 s<= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, non-zero divisor, negative dividend")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 s/= w2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=umin=umin32=0xfffffffc,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=-4,smax32=-1,var_off=(0xfffffffc; 0x3))")
+__naked void sdiv32_negative_dividend(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w2 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w1 = -w1;					\
+	w2 &= 1;					\
+	w2 |= 2;					\
+	w1 s/= w2;					\
+	if w1 s>= -4 goto l0_%=;			\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, non-zero divisor, negative divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 s/= w2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=-4,smax32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))")
+__naked void sdiv32_negative_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w2 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 &= 1;					\
+	w2 |= 2;					\
+	w2 = -w2;					\
+	w1 s/= w2;					\
+	if w1 s>= -4 goto l0_%=;			\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, non-zero divisor, both negative")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 s/= w2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void sdiv32_both_negative(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w2 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 &= 1;					\
+	w2 |= 2;					\
+	w1 = -w1;					\
+	w2 = -w2;					\
+	w1 s/= w2;					\
+	if w1 s<= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w1 s/= w2 {{.*}}; R1=0 R2=0")
+__naked void sdiv32_zero_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	w1 = w0;					\
+	w1 &= 8;					\
+	w1 |= 1;					\
+	w2 = 0;						\
+	w1 s/= w2;					\
+	if w1 == 0 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV32, S32_MIN/-1")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("w2 s/= -1 {{.*}}; R2=0x80000000")
+__naked void sdiv32_overflow(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	w1 = %[int_min];				\
+	w2 = w1;					\
+	w2 s/= -1;					\
+	if w1 == w2 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm_const(int_min, INT_MIN)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, non-zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 s/= r2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void sdiv64_non_zero(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r2 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 &= 1;					\
+	r2 |= 2;					\
+	r1 s/= r2;					\
+	if r1 s<= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, non-zero divisor, negative dividend")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 s/= r2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=-4,smax=smax32=0)")
+__naked void sdiv64_negative_dividend(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r2 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r2 &= 1;					\
+	r2 |= 2;					\
+	r1 s/= r2;					\
+	if r1 s>= -4 goto l0_%=;			\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, non-zero divisor, negative divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 s/= r2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=-4,smax=smax32=0)")
+__naked void sdiv64_negative_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r2 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 &= 1;					\
+	r2 |= 2;					\
+	r2 = -r2;					\
+	r1 s/= r2;					\
+	if r1 s>= -4 goto l0_%=;			\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, non-zero divisor, both negative")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 s/= r2 {{.*}}; R1=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=4,var_off=(0x0; 0x7))")
+__naked void sdiv64_both_negative(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r2 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 &= 1;					\
+	r2 |= 2;					\
+	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r2 = -r2;					\
+	r1 s/= r2;					\
+	if r1 s<= 4 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, zero divisor")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r1 s/= r2 {{.*}}; R1=0 R2=0")
+__naked void sdiv64_zero_divisor(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r1 = r0;					\
+	r1 &= 8;					\
+	r1 |= 1;					\
+	r2 = 0;						\
+	r1 s/= r2;					\
+	if r1 == 0 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("socket")
+__description("SDIV64, S64_MIN/-1")
+__success __retval(0) __log_level(2)
+__msg("r2 s/= -1 {{.*}}; R2=0x8000000000000000")
+__naked void sdiv64_overflow(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r1 = %[llong_min] ll;				\
+	r2 = r1;					\
+	r2 s/= -1;					\
+	if r1 == r2 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm_const(llong_min, LLONG_MIN)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[bot+bpf-ci]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2416 bytes --]

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> index f8e70e9c3998..d115528da6a6 100644

[ ... ]

> +/* __tnum_neg_width: tnum negation with given bit width.
> + * @a: the tnum to be negated.
> + * @width: the bit width to perform negation, 32 or 64.
> + */
> +static struct tnum __tnum_neg_width(struct tnum a, int width)
> +{
> +	if (width == 32)
> +		return tnum_sub(TNUM(U32_MAX, 0), a);
                                ^^^^^^^

For 32-bit negation, is subtracting from U32_MAX correct? This computes
the bitwise NOT (~a) rather than arithmetic negation (-a).

For example, for a = -10 (0xFFFFFFF6 in 32-bit):
  U32_MAX - 0xFFFFFFF6 = 9, but |-10| = 10

The 64-bit case correctly uses tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a) for negation.
Should the 32-bit case also subtract from zero (with appropriate 32-bit
masking)?

This function is called by __tnum_abs() which is used by tnum_sdiv() for
32-bit signed division, so incorrect absolute values would lead to
incorrect tnum results.

> +	else if (width == 64)
> +		return tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a);
> +	else
> +		return tnum_unknown;
> +}

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index d6b8a77fbe3b..df04a35153ef 100644

[ ... ]

> +static void scalar32_min_max_sdiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> +				struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
> +{
> +	u32 *dst_smin = &dst_reg->s32_min_value;
> +	u32 *dst_smax = &dst_reg->s32_max_value;
> +	u32 smin_val = src_reg->s32_min_value;
> +	u32 smax_val = src_reg->s32_max_value;
        ^^^

Should these be s32 rather than u32? The fields s32_min_value and
s32_max_value are declared as s32 in struct bpf_reg_state.

Using u32 causes the signed comparisons below to behave incorrectly:

> +	if (smin_val <= 0 && smax_val >= 0) {
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^

When s32_min_value contains a negative value like -10 (stored as
0xFFFFFFF6), reading it as u32 gives 4294967286, and the comparison
"smin_val <= 0" becomes "4294967286 <= 0" which is always false.

Similarly:

> +		if (smin_val < 0) {
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^

This condition can never be true when smin_val is u32.

The 64-bit version scalar_min_max_sdiv() correctly uses s64 types.

[ ... ]


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/20408116978

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[kernel test robot]

Hi Yazhou,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yazhou-Tang/selftests-bpf-Add-tests-for-BPF_DIV-analysis/20251221-174300
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/tencent_7C98FAECA40C98489ACF4515CE346F031509%40qq.com
patch subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV
config: i386-randconfig-061-20251222 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251223/202512230626.fsj1GsdX-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 20.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 87f0227cb60147a26a1eeb4fb06e3b505e9c7261)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251223/202512230626.fsj1GsdX-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202512230626.fsj1GsdX-lkp@intel.com/

sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> kernel/bpf/tnum.c:16:19: sparse: sparse: symbol 'tnum_bottom' was not declared. Should it be static?
--
   kernel/bpf/verifier.c:23659:38: sparse: sparse: subtraction of functions? Share your drugs
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15184:42: sparse: sparse: unsigned value that used to be signed checked against zero?
   kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15181:24: sparse: signed value source
   kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15191:32: sparse: sparse: unsigned value that used to be signed checked against zero?
   kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15180:24: sparse: signed value source
   kernel/bpf/verifier.c: note: in included file (through include/linux/bpf.h, include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h):
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast from non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast from non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast from non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar
   include/linux/bpfptr.h:65:40: sparse: sparse: cast from non-scalar

vim +/tnum_bottom +16 kernel/bpf/tnum.c

    11	
    12	#define TNUM(_v, _m)	(struct tnum){.value = _v, .mask = _m}
    13	/* A completely unknown value */
    14	const struct tnum tnum_unknown = { .value = 0, .mask = -1 };
    15	/* Tnum bottom */
  > 16	const struct tnum tnum_bottom = { .value = -1, .mask = -1 };
    17	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[kernel test robot]

Hi Yazhou,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yazhou-Tang/selftests-bpf-Add-tests-for-BPF_DIV-analysis/20251221-174300
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/tencent_7C98FAECA40C98489ACF4515CE346F031509%40qq.com
patch subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV
config: i386-randconfig-053-20251222 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251223/202512230859.IsGUdbZS-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-14 (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251223/202512230859.IsGUdbZS-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202512230859.IsGUdbZS-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.o: in function `__bpf_sdiv':
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227:(.text+0xfcb2): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
>> ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227:(.text+0xfd37): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227:(.text+0xfdae): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227:(.text+0xfe0c): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227:(.text+0xff7c): undefined reference to `__divdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.o: in function `scalar_min_max_udiv':
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15138:(.text+0x1b9bb): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
>> ld: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15139:(.text+0x1b9dc): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/tnum.o: in function `tnum_udiv':
>> kernel/bpf/tnum.c:227:(.text+0x1b3): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
>> ld: kernel/bpf/tnum.c:219:(.text+0x28d): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/tnum.c:227:(.text+0xb05): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
   ld: kernel/bpf/tnum.o:kernel/bpf/tnum.c:219: more undefined references to `__udivdi3' follow
   ld: kernel/bpf/tnum.o: in function `tnum_sdiv':
>> kernel/bpf/tnum.c:300:(.text+0x131d): undefined reference to `__divdi3'


vim +15227 kernel/bpf/verifier.c

 15118	
 15119	static void scalar_min_max_udiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 15120					struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
 15121	{
 15122		u64 *dst_umin = &dst_reg->umin_value;
 15123		u64 *dst_umax = &dst_reg->umax_value;
 15124		u64 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value;
 15125		u64 umax_val = src_reg->umax_value;
 15126	
 15127		if (umin_val == 0) {
 15128			/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
 15129			 * 1. If umin_val == umax_val == 0, i.e. divisor is certainly 0,
 15130			 * then the result must be 0, [a,b] / [0,0] = [0,0].
 15131			 * 2. If umin_val == 0 && umax_val != 0, then dst_umin = x / 0 = 0,
 15132			 * dst_umax = dst_umax / 1, remains unchanged, [a,b] / [0,x] = [0,b].
 15133			 */
 15134			*dst_umin = 0;
 15135			if (umax_val == 0)
 15136				*dst_umax = 0;
 15137		} else {
 15138			*dst_umin = *dst_umin / umax_val;
 15139			*dst_umax = *dst_umax / umin_val;
 15140		}
 15141	
 15142		/* Reset signed interval to TOP. */
 15143		dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
 15144		dst_reg->smax_value = S64_MAX;
 15145	}
 15146	
 15147	static s32 __bpf_sdiv32(s32 a, s32 b)
 15148	{
 15149		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
 15150		if (unlikely(b == 0))
 15151			return 0;
 15152		/* BPF mod specification: S32_MIN / -1 = S32_MIN */
 15153		if (unlikely(a == S32_MIN && b == -1))
 15154			return S32_MIN;
 15155		return a / b;
 15156	}
 15157	
 15158	/* The divisor interval does not cross 0,
 15159	 * i.e. src_min and src_max have same sign.
 15160	 */
 15161	static void __sdiv32_range(s32 dst_min, s32 dst_max, s32 src_min, s32 src_max,
 15162					s32 *res_min, s32 *res_max)
 15163	{
 15164		s32 tmp_res[4] = {
 15165			__bpf_sdiv32(dst_min, src_min),
 15166			__bpf_sdiv32(dst_min, src_max),
 15167			__bpf_sdiv32(dst_max, src_min),
 15168			__bpf_sdiv32(dst_max, src_max)
 15169		};
 15170	
 15171		*res_min = min_array(tmp_res, 4);
 15172		*res_max = max_array(tmp_res, 4);
 15173	}
 15174	
 15175	static void scalar32_min_max_sdiv(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
 15176					struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg)
 15177	{
 15178		u32 *dst_smin = &dst_reg->s32_min_value;
 15179		u32 *dst_smax = &dst_reg->s32_max_value;
 15180		u32 smin_val = src_reg->s32_min_value;
 15181		u32 smax_val = src_reg->s32_max_value;
 15182		s32 res_min, res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max;
 15183	
 15184		if (smin_val <= 0 && smax_val >= 0) {
 15185			/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0
 15186			 * Set initial result to 0, as 0 is in divisor interval.
 15187			 */
 15188			res_min = 0;
 15189			res_max = 0;
 15190			/* negative divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [b_min,-1] */
 15191			if (smin_val < 0) {
 15192				__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, -1,
 15193						&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
 15194				__scalar32_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
 15195			}
 15196			/* positive divisor interval: [a_min,a_max] / [1,b_max] */
 15197			if (smax_val > 0) {
 15198				__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, 1, smax_val,
 15199						&tmp_min, &tmp_max);
 15200				__scalar32_min_max_join(&res_min, &res_max, tmp_min, tmp_max);
 15201			}
 15202		} else {
 15203			__sdiv32_range(*dst_smin, *dst_smax, smin_val, smax_val,
 15204				&res_min, &res_max);
 15205		}
 15206	
 15207		/* BPF mod specification: S32_MIN / -1 = S32_MIN */
 15208		if (*dst_smin == S32_MIN && smin_val <= -1 && smax_val >= -1)
 15209			res_min = S32_MIN;
 15210	
 15211		*dst_smin = res_min;
 15212		*dst_smax = res_max;
 15213	
 15214		/* Reset unsigned interval to TOP. */
 15215		dst_reg->u32_min_value = 0;
 15216		dst_reg->u32_max_value = U32_MAX;
 15217	}
 15218	
 15219	static s64 __bpf_sdiv(s64 a, s64 b)
 15220	{
 15221		/* BPF div specification: x / 0 = 0 */
 15222		if (unlikely(b == 0))
 15223			return 0;
 15224		/* BPF div specification: S64_MIN / -1 = S64_MIN */
 15225		if (unlikely(a == S64_MIN && b == -1))
 15226			return S64_MIN;
 15227		return a / b;
 15228	}
 15229	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV

[kernel test robot]

Hi Yazhou,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yazhou-Tang/selftests-bpf-Add-tests-for-BPF_DIV-analysis/20251221-174300
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/tencent_7C98FAECA40C98489ACF4515CE346F031509%40qq.com
patch subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add interval and tnum analysis for signed and unsigned BPF_DIV
config: i386-randconfig-051-20251222 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251224/202512240306.FBKF27IL-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 20.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 87f0227cb60147a26a1eeb4fb06e3b505e9c7261)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251224/202512240306.FBKF27IL-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202512240306.FBKF27IL-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: __divdi3
   >>> referenced by tnum.c:300 (kernel/bpf/tnum.c:300)
   >>>               kernel/bpf/tnum.o:(tnum_sdiv) in archive vmlinux.a
   >>> referenced by verifier.c:15227 (kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227)
   >>>               kernel/bpf/verifier.o:(scalar_min_max_sdiv) in archive vmlinux.a
   >>> referenced by verifier.c:15227 (kernel/bpf/verifier.c:15227)
   >>>               kernel/bpf/verifier.o:(scalar_min_max_sdiv) in archive vmlinux.a
   >>> referenced 6 more times

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki