From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="NhK31YwI" Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D500A9 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 07:13:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c876f1e44dso51397821fa.0 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 07:13:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700665987; x=1701270787; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:autocrypt :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xsb5xEtZcwnGgz4sf/a/rvQcUBFj4RoYQoiFqlRxAHQ=; b=NhK31YwIg/iE1eNCJQll8RdeTXQenPjr4V+9DILFB5Ip+7ht3eIcWJlD8cfFIUaXUA PUQciFN2NY9C/wqcjb0vjr4s8lWuuxnk3bwXRzhJIDzvn8ivykC7kgTxJCLYM+gVQCaX SvK6YgPhUuyij7vdHpZ3gs6UtHHDB7AggQH3v0nGWvXtKhmbIkxMAoHeFWg7ViGUYmDD nEm8ZTz9KZ9G+860YF8beL9qY9JGNfrqC5jNB4oBsvDJw3GykBWiu59myXHMi71b+Ygd jC+RkFBB9bURxALudqDpMxARsW5chQEnct7/5eOgaQ++0w11A7BLHdr93feDPfWA+Z+Z HfRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700665987; x=1701270787; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:autocrypt :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xsb5xEtZcwnGgz4sf/a/rvQcUBFj4RoYQoiFqlRxAHQ=; b=S7a1A9Q5OgJlPx5AKqRja9E3kNS0UwNWGkh9qodEF5FqHv0mi02U+pHgpqzsFRsBOQ fKYBP+C2UZ3qu8bvS3mG9+CFq77FIfdgFkPYO4xuHVqYvmQR4J4TzEF/fbmQCTb2Pn+i UHXNz1aX2BJH+cetTXlTk4es32s9ZoJEqNrt3P5jssK/4PGIBZ6fF4MtXkkEmtP8i58+ pXjSWuxoGmgvsfD2/o3fwhSsvcNf1fi86ygNqlC1XyXGqMWWxMUZSHHAappv6a1NN2C8 DeazqvXfK/s8nlgRyWI6XlTp4Itb1VMjsn7E4ZAtTID56JXVO5mwye7N3O0DDNk/ogFE SF7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz++/co02snlV3rpGyUInnmFXJ7q+JL0iW6WZh8km2Ve4kD/i1l IkHUCkcqmHQ/GSJ7/AjuUlgVbJNfOls= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEekRqlrXeRkI8FYMC9x6nUCZ0yJ3U2+ehqR0uMxsK54+6VmsyVXhMd6Vhh5wBKYxkaZ/BVsA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:456a:0:b0:509:7915:a1d6 with SMTP id k10-20020ac2456a000000b005097915a1d6mr2141903lfm.58.1700665987244; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 07:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.95] (host-176-36-0-241.b024.la.net.ua. [176.36.0.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y22-20020a056512335600b0050ab696bfaasm503865lfd.3.2023.11.22.07.13.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 07:13:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 04/10] bpf: enforce exact retval range on subprog/callback exit From: Eduard Zingerman To: Andrii Nakryiko , bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@kernel.org Cc: kernel-team@meta.com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:13:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20231122011656.1105943-5-andrii@kernel.org> References: <20231122011656.1105943-1-andrii@kernel.org> <20231122011656.1105943-5-andrii@kernel.org> Autocrypt: addr=eddyz87@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=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 nYzhLWGcczc6J71q1Dje0l5vIPaSFOgwmWD4DA+WvuxM/shH4rtWeodbv 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 t1iq+gsfnXbPz5AnS598ScZI1oP7OrPSFJkt/z4acEbOQDQs8aUqrd46PV jsdqGvKnXZxzylux29UTNby4jTlz9pNJM+wPrDRmGfchLDUmf6CffaUYCbu4FiId+9+dcTCDvxbABRy1C3OJ8QY7cxfJ+pEZW18fRJ0XCl/fiV/ecAOfB3HsqgTzAn555h0rkFgay0hAvMU/mAW/CFNSIxV397zm749ZNLA0L2dMy1AKuOqH+/B+/ImBfJMDjmdyJQ8WU/OFRuGLdqOd2oZrA1iuPIa+yUYyZkaZfz/emQwpIL1+Q4p1R/OplA4yc301AqruXXUcVDbEB+joHW3hy5FwK5t5OwTKatrSJBkydSF9zdXy98fYzGniRyRA65P0Ix/8J3BYB4edY2/w0Ip/mdYsYQljBY0A== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 17:16 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Instead of relying on potentially imprecise tnum representation of > expected return value range for callbacks and subprogs, validate that > both tnum and umin/umax range satisfy exact expected range of return > values. >=20 > E.g., if callback would need to return [0, 2] range, tnum can't > represent this precisely and instead will allow [0, 3] range. By > additionally checking umin/umax range, we can make sure that > subprog/callback indeed returns only valid [0, 2] range. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko > --- Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman (but please see a question below) [...] > @@ -9464,6 +9477,16 @@ static bool in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(struct bpf_= verifier_env *env) > return is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(kfunc_btf_id); > } > =20 > +static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const str= uct bpf_reg_state *reg) > +{ > + struct tnum trange =3D retval_range_as_tnum(range); > + > + if (!tnum_in(trange, reg->var_off)) > + return false; Q: When is it necessary to do this check? I tried commenting it and test_{verifier,progs} still pass. Are there situations when umin/umax change is not sufficient? > + > + return range.minval <=3D reg->umin_value && reg->umax_value <=3D range.= maxval; > +} > + [...]