Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Track aligned st store as imprecise spilled registers

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:07 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> With patch set [1], precision backtracing supports register spill/fill
> to/from the stack. The patch [2] allows initial imprecise register spill
> with content 0. This is a common case for cpuv3 and lower for
> initializing the stack variables with pattern
>   r1 = 0
>   *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1
> and the [2] has demonstrated good verification improvement.
>
> For cpuv4, the initialization could be
>   *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0
> The current verifier marks the r10-8 contents with STACK_ZERO.
> Similar to [2], let us permit the above insn to behave like
> imprecise register spill which can reduce number of verified states.
>
> I checked cpuv3 and cpuv4 with and without this patch.
> There is no change for cpuv3 since '*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0'
> is only generated with cpuv4.
>
> For cpuv4:
> $ ../veristat -C old.cpuv4.csv new.cpuv4.csv -e file,prog,insns,states -s '|insns_diff|'
> File                                                   Program                                               Insns (A)  Insns (B)  Insns    (DIFF)  States (A)  States (B)  States (DIFF)
> -----------------------------------------------------  ----------------------------------------------------  ---------  ---------  ---------------  ----------  ----------  -------------
> pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked3.o                       on_event                                                   6066       4889  -1177 (-19.40%)         403         321  -82 (-20.35%)
> xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o                        syncookie_tc                                              12412      11719    -693 (-5.58%)         345         330   -15 (-4.35%)
> xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o                        syncookie_xdp                                             12478      11794    -684 (-5.48%)         346         331   -15 (-4.34%)
> test_cls_redirect.bpf.linked3.o                        cls_redirect                                              35483      35387     -96 (-0.27%)        2179        2177    -2 (-0.09%)
> local_storage_bench.bpf.linked3.o                      get_local                                                   228        168    -60 (-26.32%)          17          14   -3 (-17.65%)
> test_l4lb_noinline.bpf.linked3.o                       balancer_ingress                                           4494       4522     +28 (+0.62%)         217         219    +2 (+0.92%)
> test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o                balancer_ingress                                           1432       1455     +23 (+1.61%)          92          94    +2 (+2.17%)
> verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.linked3.o             widening                                                     52         41    -11 (-21.15%)           4           3   -1 (-25.00%)
> test_xdp_noinline.bpf.linked3.o                        balancer_ingress_v6                                        3462       3458      -4 (-0.12%)         216         216    +0 (+0.00%)
> ...
>
> test_l4lb_noinline and test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr has minor regression, but
> pyperf600_bpf_loop and local_storage_bench gets pretty good improvement.
>
>   [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-1-andrii@kernel.org/
>   [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-9-andrii@kernel.org/
>
> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                                   | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index a376eb609c41..17ad0228270e 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -4491,7 +4491,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>                 if (fls64(reg->umax_value) > BITS_PER_BYTE * size)
>                         state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.id = 0;
>         } else if (!reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) &&
> -                  insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) {
> +                  env->bpf_capable) {

the change makes sense, there is nothing special about insn->imm == 0
case, so LGTM

>                 struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {};
>
>                 __mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, insn->imm);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
> index 39fe3372e0e0..05de3de56e79 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
> @@ -496,13 +496,13 @@ SEC("raw_tp")
>  __log_level(2)
>  __success
>  /* make sure fp-8 is all STACK_ZERO */

but we should update STACK_ZERO comments in this test

and also, STACK_ZERO situation is still possible, right? E.g., when we
spill register at -4 offset, not -8. So I'd either extend or add
another test to make sure we still validate that STACK_ZERO slots
return precise zero. Can you add something like this?


> -__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0          ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000")
> +__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0          ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
>  /* but fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE zero const reg */
>  __msg("4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0        ; R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=0")
>  /* validate that assigning R2 from STACK_ZERO doesn't mark register
>   * precise immediately; if necessary, it will be marked precise later
>   */
> -__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1)          ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000")
> +__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1)          ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
>  /* similarly, when R2 is assigned from spilled register, it is initially
>   * imprecise, but will be marked precise later once it is used in precise context
>   */
> --
> 2.34.1
>