Re: [PATCH bpf-next 01/13] bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle non-const register comparisons

Shung-Hsi Yu
2023-11-03T08:33:26Z

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:52:36PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 05:08:10PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Generalize bounds adjustment logic of reg_set_min_max() to handle not
> > just register vs constant case, but in general any register vs any
> > register cases. For most of the operations it's trivial extension based
> > on range vs range comparison logic, we just need to properly pick
> > min/max of a range to compare against min/max of the other range.
> >
> > For BPF_JSET we keep the original capabilities, just make sure JSET is
> > integrated in the common framework. This is manifested in the
> > internal-only BPF_KSET + BPF_X "opcode" to allow for simpler and more
> ^ typo?
>
> Two more comments below
>
> > uniform rev_opcode() handling. See the code for details. This allows to
> > reuse the same code exactly both for TRUE and FALSE branches without
> > explicitly handling both conditions with custom code.
> >
> > Note also that now we don't need a special handling of BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE
> > case none of the registers are constants. This is now just a normal
> > generic case handled by reg_set_min_max().
> >
> > To make tnum handling cleaner, tnum_with_subreg() helper is added, as
> > that's a common operator when dealing with 32-bit subregister bounds.
> > This keeps the overall logic much less noisy when it comes to tnums.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/tnum.h | 4 +
> > kernel/bpf/tnum.c | 7 +-
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 327 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 3 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 173 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/tnum.h b/include/linux/tnum.h
> > index 1c3948a1d6ad..3c13240077b8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/tnum.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/tnum.h
> > @@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ int tnum_sbin(char *str, size_t size, struct tnum a);
> > struct tnum tnum_subreg(struct tnum a);
> > /* Returns the tnum with the lower 32-bit subreg cleared */
> > struct tnum tnum_clear_subreg(struct tnum a);
> > +/* Returns the tnum with the lower 32-bit subreg in *reg* set to the lower
> > + * 32-bit subreg in *subreg*
> > + */
> > +struct tnum tnum_with_subreg(struct tnum reg, struct tnum subreg);
> > /* Returns the tnum with the lower 32-bit subreg set to value */
> > struct tnum tnum_const_subreg(struct tnum a, u32 value);
> > /* Returns true if 32-bit subreg @a is a known constant*/
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> > index 3d7127f439a1..f4c91c9b27d7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
> > @@ -208,7 +208,12 @@ struct tnum tnum_clear_subreg(struct tnum a)
> > return tnum_lshift(tnum_rshift(a, 32), 32);
> > }
> >
> > +struct tnum tnum_with_subreg(struct tnum reg, struct tnum subreg)
> > +{
> > + return tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(reg), tnum_subreg(subreg));
> > +}
> > +
> > struct tnum tnum_const_subreg(struct tnum a, u32 value)
> > {
> > - return tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(a), tnum_const(value));
> > + return tnum_with_subreg(a, tnum_const(value));
> > }
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 2197385d91dc..52934080042c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -14379,218 +14379,211 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg
> > return is_scalar_branch_taken(reg1, reg2, opcode, is_jmp32);
> > }
> >
> > -/* Adjusts the register min/max values in the case that the dst_reg and
> > - * src_reg are both SCALAR_VALUE registers (or we are simply doing a BPF_K
> > - * check, in which case we havea fake SCALAR_VALUE representing insn->imm).
> > - * Technically we can do similar adjustments for pointers to the same object,
> > - * but we don't support that right now.
> > +/* Opcode that corresponds to a *false* branch condition.
> > + * E.g., if r1 < r2, then reverse (false) condition is r1 >= r2
> > */
> > -static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg1,
> > - struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg2,
> > - struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg1,
> > - struct bpf_reg_state *false_reg2,
> > - u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
> > +static u8 rev_opcode(u8 opcode)
>
> Nit: rev_opcode and flip_opcode seems like a possible source of confusing
> down the line. Flip and reverse are often interchangable, i.e. "flip the
> order" and "reverse the order" is the same thing.
>
> Maybe "neg_opcode" or "neg_cond_opcode"?
>
> Or do it the otherway around, keep rev_opcode but rename flip_opcode.
>
> One more comment about BPF_JSET below
>
> > {
> > - struct tnum false_32off, false_64off;
> > - struct tnum true_32off, true_64off;
> > - u64 uval;
> > - u32 uval32;
> > - s64 sval;
> > - s32 sval32;
> > -
> > - /* If either register is a pointer, we can't learn anything about its
> > - * variable offset from the compare (unless they were a pointer into
> > - * the same object, but we don't bother with that).
> > + switch (opcode) {
> > + case BPF_JEQ: return BPF_JNE;
> > + case BPF_JNE: return BPF_JEQ;
> > + /* JSET doesn't have it's reverse opcode in BPF, so add
> > + * BPF_X flag to denote the reverse of that operation
> > */
> > - if (false_reg1->type != SCALAR_VALUE || false_reg2->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - /* we expect right-hand registers (src ones) to be constants, for now */
> > - if (!is_reg_const(false_reg2, is_jmp32)) {
> > - opcode = flip_opcode(opcode);
> > - swap(true_reg1, true_reg2);
> > - swap(false_reg1, false_reg2);
> > + case BPF_JSET: return BPF_JSET | BPF_X;
> > + case BPF_JSET | BPF_X: return BPF_JSET;
> > + case BPF_JGE: return BPF_JLT;
> > + case BPF_JGT: return BPF_JLE;
> > + case BPF_JLE: return BPF_JGT;
> > + case BPF_JLT: return BPF_JGE;
> > + case BPF_JSGE: return BPF_JSLT;
> > + case BPF_JSGT: return BPF_JSLE;
> > + case BPF_JSLE: return BPF_JSGT;
> > + case BPF_JSLT: return BPF_JSGE;
> > + default: return 0;
> > }
> > - if (!is_reg_const(false_reg2, is_jmp32))
> > - return;
> > +}
> >
> > - false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg1->var_off);
> > - false_64off = false_reg1->var_off;
> > - true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg1->var_off);
> > - true_64off = true_reg1->var_off;
> > - uval = false_reg2->var_off.value;
> > - uval32 = (u32)tnum_subreg(false_reg2->var_off).value;
> > - sval = (s64)uval;
> > - sval32 = (s32)uval32;
> > +/* Refine range knowledge for <reg1> <op> <reg>2 conditional operation. */
> > +static void regs_refine_cond_op(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state *reg2,
> > + u8 opcode, bool is_jmp32)
> > +{
> > + struct tnum t;
> >
> > switch (opcode) {
> > - /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence.
> > - *
> > - * r1 = r2;
> > - * if (r1 == 42) goto label;
> > - * ...
> > - * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42.
> > - *
> > - * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID.
> > - */
> > case BPF_JEQ:
> > if (is_jmp32) {
> > - __mark_reg32_known(true_reg1, uval32);
> > - true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg1->var_off);
> > + reg1->u32_min_value = max(reg1->u32_min_value, reg2->u32_min_value);
> > + reg1->u32_max_value = min(reg1->u32_max_value, reg2->u32_max_value);
> > + reg1->s32_min_value = max(reg1->s32_min_value, reg2->s32_min_value);
> > + reg1->s32_max_value = min(reg1->s32_max_value, reg2->s32_max_value);
> > + reg2->u32_min_value = reg1->u32_min_value;
> > + reg2->u32_max_value = reg1->u32_max_value;
> > + reg2->s32_min_value = reg1->s32_min_value;
> > + reg2->s32_max_value = reg1->s32_max_value;
> > +
> > + t = tnum_intersect(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off));
> > + reg1->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg1->var_off, t);
> > + reg2->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg2->var_off, t);
> > } else {
> > - ___mark_reg_known(true_reg1, uval);
> > - true_64off = true_reg1->var_off;
> > + reg1->umin_value = max(reg1->umin_value, reg2->umin_value);
> > + reg1->umax_value = min(reg1->umax_value, reg2->umax_value);
> > + reg1->smin_value = max(reg1->smin_value, reg2->smin_value);
> > + reg1->smax_value = min(reg1->smax_value, reg2->smax_value);
> > + reg2->umin_value = reg1->umin_value;
> > + reg2->umax_value = reg1->umax_value;
> > + reg2->smin_value = reg1->smin_value;
> > + reg2->smax_value = reg1->smax_value;
> > +
> > + reg1->var_off = tnum_intersect(reg1->var_off, reg2->var_off);
> > + reg2->var_off = reg1->var_off;
> > }
> > break;
> > case BPF_JNE:
> > + /* we don't derive any new information for inequality yet */
> > + break;
> > + case BPF_JSET:
> > + case BPF_JSET | BPF_X: { /* BPF_JSET and its reverse, see rev_opcode() */
> > + u64 val;
> > +
> > + if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> > + swap(reg1, reg2);
> > + if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + val = reg_const_value(reg2, is_jmp32);
> > + /* BPF_JSET (i.e., TRUE branch, *not* BPF_JSET | BPF_X)
> > + * requires single bit to learn something useful. E.g., if we
> > + * know that `r1 & 0x3` is true, then which bits (0, 1, or both)
> > + * are actually set? We can learn something definite only if
> > + * it's a single-bit value to begin with.
> > + *
> > + * BPF_JSET | BPF_X (i.e., negation of BPF_JSET) doesn't have
> > + * this restriction. I.e., !(r1 & 0x3) means neither bit 0 nor
> > + * bit 1 is set, which we can readily use in adjustments.
> > + */
> > + if (!(opcode & BPF_X) && !is_power_of_2(val))
> > + break;
> > +
> > if (is_jmp32) {
> > - __mark_reg32_known(false_reg1, uval32);
> > - false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg1->var_off);
> > + if (opcode & BPF_X)
> > + t = tnum_and(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_const(~val));
> > + else
> > + t = tnum_or(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_const(val));
> > + reg1->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg1->var_off, t);
> > } else {
> > - ___mark_reg_known(false_reg1, uval);
> > - false_64off = false_reg1->var_off;
> > + if (opcode & BPF_X)
> > + reg1->var_off = tnum_and(reg1->var_off, tnum_const(~val));
> > + else
> > + reg1->var_off = tnum_or(reg1->var_off, tnum_const(val));
> > }
> > break;
>
> Since you're already adding a tnum helper, I think we can add one more
> for BPF_JSET here
>
> struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a)
> {
> return TNUM(~a.value, a.mask);
> }

Didn't think it through well enough, with the above we might end up with a
invalid tnum because the unknown bits gets negated as well, need to mask the
unknown bits out.

struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a)
{
return TNUM(~a.value & ~a.mask, a.mask);
}

> So instead of getting a value out of tnum then putting the value back
> into tnum again
>
> u64 val;
> val = reg_const_value(reg2, is_jmp32);
> tnum_ops(..., tnum_const(val or ~val);
>
> Keep the value in tnum and process it as-is if possible
>
> tnum_ops(..., reg2->var_off or tnum_neg(reg2->var_off));
>
> And with that hopefully make this fragment short enough that we don't
> mind duplicate a bit of code to seperate the BPF_JSET case from the
> BPF_JSET | BPF_X case. IMO a conditional is_power_of_2 check followed by
> two level of branching is a bit too much to follow, it is better to have
> them seperated just like how you're doing it for the others already.
>
> I.e. something like the follow
>
> case BPF_JSET: {
> if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> swap(reg1, reg2);
> if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> break;
> /* comment */
> if (!is_power_of_2(reg_const_value(reg2, is_jmp32))
> break;
>
> if (is_jmp32) {
> t = tnum_or(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off));
> reg1->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg1->var_off, t);
> } else {
> reg1->var_off = tnum_or(reg1->var_off, reg2->var_off);
> }
> break;
> }
> case BPF_JSET | BPF_X: {
> if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> swap(reg1, reg2);
> if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32))
> break;
>
> if (is_jmp32) {
> /* a slightly long line ... */
> t = tnum_and(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_neg(tnum_subreg(reg2->var_off)));
> reg1->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg1->var_off, t);
> } else {
> reg1->var_off = tnum_and(reg1->var_off, tnum_neg(reg2->var_off));
> }
> break;
> }
>
> > ...