[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKZ1MkBttCKsOMh7nNXNP4OVxGdYLnJuXjNFLPUv3Bm6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:24:01 +0200
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:40 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>
> +
> +/* Returns constant key value if possible, else -1 */
> +static long get_constant_map_key(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> + struct bpf_reg_state *key)
> +{
> + struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, key);
> + struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
> + int stack_off;
> + int slot;
> + int spi;
> +
> + if (key->type != PTR_TO_STACK)
> + return -1;
> + if (!tnum_is_const(key->var_off))
> + return -1;
> +
> + stack_off = key->off + key->var_off.value;
> + slot = -stack_off - 1;
> + if (slot < 0)
> + /* Stack grew upwards */
The comment is misleading.
The verifier is supposed to catch this.
It's just this helper was called before the stack bounds
were checked?
Maybe the call can be done later?
> + return -1;
> + else if (slot >= state->allocated_stack)
> + /* Stack uninitialized */
> + return -1;
> +
> + spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE;
> + reg = &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr;
> + if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
> + /* Stack value not statically known */
> + return -1;
> +
> + return reg->var_off.value;
> +}
Looks like the code is more subtle than it looks.
I think it's better to guard it all with CAP_BPF.
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists