From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <lizefan@huawei.com>,
<pi3orama@163.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: fix a bug in verification logic when SUB operation taken on FRAME_PTR
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:44:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55836604.1050807@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150618160018.GA13470@Alexeis-MBP.westell.com>
On 2015/6/19 0:00, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 08:31:45AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
>> Original code has a problem, cause following code failed to pass verifier:
>>
>> r1 <- r10
>> r1 -= 8
>> r2 = 8
>> r3 = unsafe pointer
>> call BPF_FUNC_probe_read <-- R1 type=inv expected=fp
>>
>> However, by replacing 'r1 -= 8' to 'r1 += -8' the above program can be
>> loaded successfully.
>>
>> This is because the verifier allows only BPF_ADD instruction on a
>> FRAME_PTR reigster to forge PTR_TO_STACK register, but makes BPF_SUB
>> on FRAME_PTR reigster to get a UNKNOWN_VALUE register.
>>
>> This patch fix it by adding BPF_SUB in stack_relative checking.
> It's not a bug. It's catching ADD only by design.
> If we let it recognize SUB then one might argue we should let it
> recognize multiply, shifts and all other arithmetic on pointers.
> verifier will be getting bigger and bigger. Where do we stop?
> llvm only emits canonical ADD. If you've seen llvm doing SUB,
> let's fix it there.
> So what piece generated this 'r1 -= 8' ?
>
I hit this problem when writing code of automatical parameter generator. The
instruction is generated by myself. Now I have corrected my code.
Thank you.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-19 0:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-18 8:12 [PATCH] bpf: fix a bug in verification logic when SUB operation taken on FRAME_PTR Wang Nan
2015-06-18 8:31 ` [PATCH v2] " Wang Nan
2015-06-18 16:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2015-06-19 0:44 ` Wangnan (F) [this message]
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=55836604.1050807@huawei.com \
--to=wangnan0@huawei.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pi3orama@163.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).