[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a29c604e-5a68-eed2-b581-0ad4687fda10@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 23:26:50 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: btf: restore resolve_mode when popping the
resolve stack
On 5/15/23 5:15 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> In commit 9b459804ff99 ("btf: fix resolving BTF_KIND_VAR after ARRAY, STRUCT, UNION, PTR")
> I fixed a bug that occurred during resolving of a DATASEC by strategically resetting
> resolve_mode. This fixes the immediate bug but leaves us open to future bugs where
> nested types have to be resolved.
hmm... future bugs like when adding new BTF_KIND in the future?
>
> The problem is that env_stack_pop_resolved never restores the previously active
> resolve mode when discarding a stack item. Fix this by adding the previous resolve
> mode to each resolve_vertex and updating env->resolve_mode during pop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 6b682b8e4b50..4d6c1d0e8b7c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -264,10 +264,19 @@ enum verifier_phase {
> CHECK_TYPE,
> };
>
> +enum resolve_mode {
> + RESOLVE_TBD, /* To Be Determined */
> + RESOLVE_PTR, /* Resolving for Pointer */
> + RESOLVE_STRUCT_OR_ARRAY, /* Resolving for struct/union
> + * or array
> + */
> +};
> +
> struct resolve_vertex {
> const struct btf_type *t;
> u32 type_id;
> u16 next_member;
> + enum resolve_mode parent_mode;
> };
>
> enum visit_state {
> @@ -276,13 +285,6 @@ enum visit_state {
> RESOLVED,
> };
>
> -enum resolve_mode {
> - RESOLVE_TBD, /* To Be Determined */
> - RESOLVE_PTR, /* Resolving for Pointer */
> - RESOLVE_STRUCT_OR_ARRAY, /* Resolving for struct/union
> - * or array
> - */
> -};
>
> #define MAX_RESOLVE_DEPTH 32
>
> @@ -1811,6 +1813,7 @@ static int env_stack_push(struct btf_verifier_env *env,
> v->t = t;
> v->type_id = type_id;
> v->next_member = 0;
> + v->parent_mode = env->resolve_mode;
>
> if (env->resolve_mode == RESOLVE_TBD) {
> if (btf_type_is_ptr(t))
> @@ -1832,13 +1835,15 @@ static void env_stack_pop_resolved(struct btf_verifier_env *env,
> u32 resolved_type_id,
> u32 resolved_size)
> {
> - u32 type_id = env->stack[--(env->top_stack)].type_id;
> + struct resolve_vertex *v = &env->stack[--(env->top_stack)];
> + u32 type_id = v->type_id;
> struct btf *btf = env->btf;
>
> type_id -= btf->start_id; /* adjust to local type id */
> btf->resolved_sizes[type_id] = resolved_size;
> btf->resolved_ids[type_id] = resolved_type_id;
> env->visit_states[type_id] = RESOLVED;
> + env->resolve_mode = v->parent_mode;
Other than datasec, could v->parent_mode and env->resolve_mode be different
while resolving? I would prefer to keep the 'env->resolve_mode = RESOLVE_TBD' in
btf_datasec_resolve() to make this special case clear.
> }
>
> static const struct resolve_vertex *env_stack_peak(struct btf_verifier_env *env)
> @@ -4541,7 +4546,6 @@ static int btf_datasec_resolve(struct btf_verifier_env *env,
> struct btf *btf = env->btf;
> u16 i;
>
> - env->resolve_mode = RESOLVE_TBD;
> for_each_vsi_from(i, v->next_member, v->t, vsi) {
> u32 var_type_id = vsi->type, type_id, type_size = 0;
> const struct btf_type *var_type = btf_type_by_id(env->btf,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists