On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 07:49:13PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 4/22/18 5:16 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:18:37PM -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 <y...@fb.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > index 3c8bb92..01c215d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > @@ -2975,6 +2975,32 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct
> > > bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > /* We may learn something more from the var_off */
> > > __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
> > > break;
> > > + case BPF_ARSH:
> > > + if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
> > > + /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
> > > + * This includes shifts by a negative number.
> > > + */
> > > + mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + if (dst_reg->smin_value < 0)
> > > + dst_reg->smin_value >>= umin_val;
> > > + else
> > > + dst_reg->smin_value >>= umax_val;
> > > + if (dst_reg->smax_value < 0)
> > > + dst_reg->smax_value >>= umax_val;
> > > + else
> > > + dst_reg->smax_value >>= umin_val;
> > > + if (src_known)
> > > + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(dst_reg->var_off,
> > > + umin_val);
> > > + else
> > > + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_rshift(tnum_unknown, umin_val);
> > > + dst_reg->umin_value >>= umax_val;
> > > + dst_reg->umax_value >>= umin_val;
> > > + /* We may learn something more from the var_off */
> > > + __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
> >
> > I'm struggling to understand how these bounds are computed.
> > Could you add examples in the comments?
>
> Okay, let me try to add some comments for better understanding.
>
> > In particular if dst_reg is unknown (tnum.mask == -1)
> > the above tnum_rshift() will clear upper bits and will make it
> > 64-bit positive, but that doesn't seem correct.
> > What am I missing?
>
> Considering this is arith shift, we probably should just have
> dst_reg->var_off = tnum_unknown to be conservative.
>
> I could miss something here as well. Let me try to write more
> detailed explanation, hopefully to cover all corner cases.
Is there a use case for !src_known ?
I think test_verifier should have 100% line coverage of verifier.c
and every 'if' condition in the verifier needs to have real use case
behind it.
It's still on my todo list to get rid of [su][min|max]_value tracking
that was introduced without solid justification.
