[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d2addca-10e5-f7a6-9efd-43322eec8347@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 22:31:30 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Youlin Li <liulin063@...il.com>, haoluo@...gle.com
Cc: ast@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: Fix 32bit bounds update in ALU64
On 8/10/22 12:08 PM, Youlin Li wrote:
> The commit ("bpf: Do more tight ALU bounds tracking") introduces a bug
> that fails some selftests.
>
> in previous versions of the code, when
> __reg_combine_64_into_32() was called, the 32bit boundary was
> completely deduced from the 64bit boundary, so there was a call to
> __mark_reg32_unbounded() in __reg_combine_64_into_32(). But before
> adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() calls
> __reg_combine_64_into_32() , the 32bit bounds are already calculated
> to some extent, and __mark_reg32_unbounded() will eliminate these
> information.
>
> Simply remove the call to __reg_combine_64_into_32() and copying a code
> without __mark_reg32_unbounded() should work.
>
> Before:
> ./test_verifier 142
> #142/p bounds check after truncation of non-boundary-crossing range FAIL
> Failed to load prog 'Permission denied'!
> invalid access to map value, value_size=8 off=16777215 size=1
> R0 max value is outside of the allowed memory range
> verification time 149 usec
> stack depth 8
> processed 15 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0
> total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0
> Summary: 0 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED
>
> After:
> ./test_verifier 142
> #142/p bounds check after truncation of non-boundary-crossing range OK
> Summary: 1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Youlin Li <liulin063@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 11d8bb54ba6b..7ea6e0372d62 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -9014,7 +9014,17 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> /* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
> zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
> } else {
> - __reg_combine_64_into_32(dst_reg);
> + if (__reg64_bound_s32(dst_reg->smin_value) &&
> + __reg64_bound_s32(dst_reg->smax_value)) {
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = (s32)dst_reg->smin_value;
> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = (s32)dst_reg->smax_value;
> + }
> + if (__reg64_bound_u32(dst_reg->umin_value) &&
> + __reg64_bound_u32(dst_reg->umax_value)) {
> + dst_reg->u32_min_value = (u32)dst_reg->umin_value;
> + dst_reg->u32_max_value = (u32)dst_reg->umax_value;
> + }
> + reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
Hm, this doesn't apply to the bpf tree. Is this on top of your previous patch [0]?
Please squash both together in that case and resubmit your previous one as a v2.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9f954e67-67fc-e3b9-d810-22bfea95d2aa@iogearbox.net/
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists