From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>,
shuah@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org,
andrii@kernel.org
Cc: john.fastabend@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, mykolal@fb.com,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:44:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9012c196537e64fb148232de3f97053891c1de8.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <815cefa75561c30bec8ca62b9261d4706fa25bb6.1727174358.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 04:40 -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
> This commit allows progs to elide a null check on statically known map
> lookup keys. In other words, if the verifier can statically prove that
> the lookup will be in-bounds, allow the prog to drop the null check.
>
> This is useful for two reasons:
>
> 1. Large numbers of nullness checks (especially when they cannot fail)
> unnecessarily pushes prog towards BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_JMP_SEQ.
> 2. It forms a tighter contract between programmer and verifier.
>
> For (1), bpftrace is starting to make heavier use of percpu scratch
> maps. As a result, for user scripts with large number of unrolled loops,
> we are starting to hit jump complexity verification errors. These
> percpu lookups cannot fail anyways, as we only use static key values.
> Eliding nullness probably results in less work for verifier as well.
>
> For (2), percpu scratch maps are often used as a larger stack, as the
> currrent stack is limited to 512 bytes. In these situations, it is
> desirable for the programmer to express: "this lookup should never fail,
> and if it does, it means I messed up the code". By omitting the null
> check, the programmer can "ask" the verifier to double check the logic.
>
> Tests also have to be updated in sync with these changes, as the
> verifier is more efficient with this change. Notable, iters.c tests had
> to be changed to use a map type that still requires null checks, as it's
> exercising verifier tracking logic w.r.t iterators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
> ---
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
[...]
> +/* Returns constant key value if possible, else -1 */
> +static long get_constant_map_key(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> + struct bpf_reg_state *key)
> +{
> + struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, key);
> + struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
> + int stack_off;
> + int slot;
> + int spi;
> +
> + if (key->type != PTR_TO_STACK)
> + return -1;
> + if (!tnum_is_const(key->var_off))
> + return -1;
> +
> + stack_off = key->off + key->var_off.value;
> + slot = -stack_off - 1;
> + if (slot < 0)
> + /* Stack grew upwards */
> + return -1;
Nitpick: I'd also add a test like below:
SEC("socket")
__failure __msg("invalid indirect access to stack R2 off=4096 size=4")
__naked void key_lookup_at_invalid_fp(void)
{
asm volatile (" \
r1 = %[map_array] ll; \
r2 = r10; \
r2 += 4096; \
call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem]; \
r0 = *(u64*)(r0 + 0); \
exit; \
" :
: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
__imm_addr(map_array)
: __clobber_all);
}
(double checked with v2 and this test does cause page fault)
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-24 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-24 10:40 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] Support eliding map lookup nullness Daniel Xu
2024-09-24 10:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: verifier: " Daniel Xu
2024-09-24 18:44 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-09-25 8:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-10-02 0:07 ` Daniel Xu
2024-10-02 0:11 ` Daniel Xu
2024-09-24 10:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] bpf: selftests: verifier: Add nullness elision tests Daniel Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b9012c196537e64fb148232de3f97053891c1de8.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dxu@dxuuu.xyz \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox