From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BFFFC3A5A7 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 01:20:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:CC:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=PcHBy4OGei6c3j8LPIZCJV8NpkEQB/PZAhq2qyIkF1w=; b=Q/OC1YBnnoIcqRRDQiccj4sVoG U1jxK4Hvz2lLm/migqyeE/QuE5r0J/N1pi4NgEhJUvGCsA3nUnr37gK0eEpisjpZ7fgrjMrxGp/hW lFTqn/DosYl1Cc6ryyekwyujDuMj/vRqRvNDdLdmkrGaVq0QVeVeSkldh88fydg9jdd1stqglyXBQ 3tu8p5niRmFs/kpxyz4FCOQh6jVsPRs9UUL6u8ouoM8rfYyDr9Bl99T53lV8+TpkKc/Ji0Yxltx7s Rt81qx1zR6Lo0r4YAoKrOJOOSULE6pbxu6A/d2ER5wubVQlqHLcYzlW8rvF2spzxaALrkhJ+uziIS M2wSFdIg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1p209D-00CC64-Ok; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 01:19:55 +0000 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1p2099-00CC3o-8D for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 01:19:53 +0000 Received: from kwepemm600003.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NQQg26jXFzmVRP; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:18:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.111.205] (10.67.111.205) by kwepemm600003.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:19:40 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] bpf: Adapt 32-bit return value kfunc for 32-bit ARM when zext extension To: Alexei Starovoitov CC: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , Shubham Bansal , Russell King , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Mykola Lysenko , Shuah Khan , Benjamin Tissoires , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , , Artem Savkov , Delyan Kratunov , bpf , linux-arm-kernel , LKML , Network Development , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" References: <20221126094530.226629-1-yangjihong1@huawei.com> <20221126094530.226629-2-yangjihong1@huawei.com> <20221128015758.aekybr3qlahfopwq@MacBook-Pro-5.local> <8cb54255-4dce-6d50-d6f0-ac9af0e56f37@huawei.com> From: Yang Jihong Message-ID: <4a2b8cd5-78c4-360a-6eb0-33fcf689d26a@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:19:40 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.67.111.205] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemm600003.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.202) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20221204_171951_645304_7E10452C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.06 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 2022/12/4 0:40, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:58 PM Yang Jihong wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2022/11/29 0:41, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:40 AM Yang Jihong wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2022/11/28 9:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 05:45:27PM +0800, Yang Jihong wrote: >>>>>> For ARM32 architecture, if data width of kfunc return value is 32 bits, >>>>>> need to do explicit zero extension for high 32-bit, insn_def_regno should >>>>>> return dst_reg for BPF_JMP type of BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL. Otherwise, >>>>>> opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32 returns -EFAULT, resulting in BPF failure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong >>>>>> --- >>>>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>>>>> index 264b3dc714cc..193ea927aa69 100644 >>>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c >>>>>> @@ -1927,6 +1927,21 @@ find_kfunc_desc(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id, u16 offset) >>>>>> sizeof(tab->descs[0]), kfunc_desc_cmp_by_id_off); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static int kfunc_desc_cmp_by_imm(const void *a, const void *b); >>>>>> + >>>>>> +static const struct bpf_kfunc_desc * >>>>>> +find_kfunc_desc_by_imm(const struct bpf_prog *prog, s32 imm) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + struct bpf_kfunc_desc desc = { >>>>>> + .imm = imm, >>>>>> + }; >>>>>> + struct bpf_kfunc_desc_tab *tab; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + tab = prog->aux->kfunc_tab; >>>>>> + return bsearch(&desc, tab->descs, tab->nr_descs, >>>>>> + sizeof(tab->descs[0]), kfunc_desc_cmp_by_imm); >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> static struct btf *__find_kfunc_desc_btf(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, >>>>>> s16 offset) >>>>>> { >>>>>> @@ -2342,6 +2357,13 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, >>>>>> */ >>>>>> if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) >>>>>> return false; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* Kfunc call will reach here because of insn_has_def32, >>>>>> + * conservatively return TRUE. >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) >>>>>> + return true; >>>>>> + >>>>>> /* Helper call will reach here because of arg type >>>>>> * check, conservatively return TRUE. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> @@ -2405,10 +2427,26 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /* Return the regno defined by the insn, or -1. */ >>>>>> -static int insn_def_regno(const struct bpf_insn *insn) >>>>>> +static int insn_def_regno(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_insn *insn) >>>>>> { >>>>>> switch (BPF_CLASS(insn->code)) { >>>>>> case BPF_JMP: >>>>>> + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) { >>>>>> + const struct bpf_kfunc_desc *desc; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* The value of desc cannot be NULL */ >>>>>> + desc = find_kfunc_desc_by_imm(env->prog, insn->imm); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* A kfunc can return void. >>>>>> + * The btf type of the kfunc's return value needs >>>>>> + * to be checked against "void" first >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + if (desc->func_model.ret_size == 0) >>>>>> + return -1; >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + return insn->dst_reg; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + fallthrough; >>>>> >>>>> I cannot make any sense of this patch. >>>>> insn->dst_reg above is 0. >>>>> The kfunc call doesn't define a register from insn_def_regno() pov. >>>>> >>>>> Are you hacking insn_def_regno() to return 0 so that >>>>> if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1)) { >>>>> verbose(env, "verifier bug. zext_dst is set, but no reg is defined\n"); >>>>> return -EFAULT; >>>>> } >>>>> in opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() doesn't trigger ? >>>>> >>>>> But this verifier message should have been a hint that you need >>>>> to analyze why zext_dst is set on this kfunc call. >>>>> Maybe it shouldn't ? >>>>> Did you analyze the logic of mark_btf_func_reg_size() ? >>>> make r0 zext is not caused by mark_btf_func_reg_size. >>>> >>>> This problem occurs when running the kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id test >>>> case in the 32-bit ARM environment. >>> >>> Why is it not failing on x86-32 ? >> Use the latest mainline kernel code to test on the x86_32 machine. The >> test also fails: >> >> # ./test_progs -t kfunc_call/kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id >> Failed to load bpf_testmod.ko into the kernel: -8 >> WARNING! Selftests relying on bpf_testmod.ko will be skipped. >> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id': BPF program load failed: >> Bad address >> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id': -- BEGIN PROG LOAD LOG -- >> processed 25 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states >> 2 peak_states 2 mark_read 1 >> -- END PROG LOAD LOG -- >> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test_ref_btf_id': failed to load: -14 >> libbpf: failed to load object 'kfunc_call_test' >> libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'kfunc_call_test': -14 >> verify_success:FAIL:skel unexpected error: -14 >> >> Therefore, this problem also exists on x86_32: >> "verifier bug. zext_dst is set, but no reg is defined" > > The kernel returns -14 == EFAULT. > That's a completely different issue. It's the same problem. The opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32 function fails to check here and returns -EFAULT opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32 { ... if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1)) { verbose(env, "verifier bug. zext_dst is set, but no reg is defined\n"); return -EFAULT; } ... } > . > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel