[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170608.161851.611860605114539498.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 16:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ecree@...arflare.com
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] bpf: rewrite value tracking in
verifier
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:55:57 +0100
> This series simplifies alignment tracking, generalises bounds tracking and
> fixes some bounds-tracking bugs in the BPF verifier. Pointer arithmetic on
> packet pointers, stack pointers, map value pointers and context pointers has
> been unified, and bounds on these pointers are only checked when the pointer
> is dereferenced.
> Operations on pointers which destroy all relation to the original pointer
> (such as multiplies and shifts) are disallowed if !env->allow_ptr_leaks,
> otherwise they convert the pointer to an unknown scalar and feed it to the
> normal scalar arithmetic handling.
> Pointer types have been unified with the corresponding adjusted-pointer types
> where those existed (e.g. PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE[_ADJ] or FRAME_PTR vs
> PTR_TO_STACK); similarly, CONST_IMM and UNKNOWN_VALUE have been unified into
> SCALAR_VALUE.
> Pointer types (except CONST_PTR_TO_MAP, PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL and
> PTR_TO_PACKET_END, which do not allow arithmetic) have a 'fixed offset' and
> a 'variable offset'; the former is used when e.g. adding an immediate or a
> known-constant register, as long as it does not overflow. Otherwise the
> latter is used, and any operation creating a new variable offset creates a
> new 'id' (and, for PTR_TO_PACKET, clears the 'range').
> SCALAR_VALUEs use the 'variable offset' fields to track the range of possible
> values; the 'fixed offset' should never be set on a scalar.
>
> Patch 2/5 is rather on the big side, but since it changes the contents and
> semantics of a fairly central data structure, I'm not really sure how to go
> about splitting it up further without producing broken intermediate states.
>
> With the changes in patch 5/5, all tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier
> tests pass.
Edward, I haven't had a chance to review this yet, but I wanted to thank you
for working on this.
I will find some time to test your work on sparc too.
Thanks again!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists