Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/9] bpf/verifier: improve register value range tracking with ARSH

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:54:39AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> When helpers like bpf_get_stack returns an int value
> and later on used for arithmetic computation, the LSH and ARSH
> operations are often required to get proper sign extension into
> 64-bit. For example, without this patch:
>     54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
>     54: (bf) r8 = r0
>     55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
>     55: (67) r8 <<= 32
>     56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
>     56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
>     57: R8=inv(id=0)
> With this patch:
>     54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
>     54: (bf) r8 = r0
>     55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
>     55: (67) r8 <<= 32
>     56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
>     56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
>     57: R8=inv(id=0, umax_value=800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff))
> With better range of "R8", later on when "R8" is added to other register,
> e.g., a map pointer or scalar-value register, the better register
> range can be derived and verifier failure may be avoided.
> 
> In our later example,
>     ......
>     usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
>     if (usize < 0)
>         return 0;
>     ksize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data + usize, max_len - usize, 0);
>     ......
> Without improving ARSH value range tracking, the register representing
> "max_len - usize" will have smin_value equal to S64_MIN and will be
> rejected by verifier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index a8302c3..6148d31 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -2944,6 +2944,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  		__update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
>  		break;
>  	case BPF_RSH:
> +	case BPF_ARSH:

I don't think that's correct.
The code further down is very RSH specific.

>  		if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
>  			/* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
>  			 * This includes shifts by a negative number.
> -- 
> 2.9.5
>