netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/16] bpf: add eBPF verifier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrUV+CSJzBzec7fRc6k4yDd+kCxz6Zi8zGNOQvACoKkP9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:10:47 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/16] bpf: add eBPF verifier

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Safety of eBPF programs is statically determined by the verifier, which detects:
>>>>> - loops
>>>>> - out of range jumps
>>>>> - unreachable instructions
>>>>> - invalid instructions
>>>>> - uninitialized register access
>>>>> - uninitialized stack access
>>>>> - misaligned stack access
>>>>> - out of range stack access
>>>>> - invalid calling convention
>>>>
>>>> Is there something that documents exactly what conditions an eBPF
>>>> program must satisfy in order to be considered valid?
>>>
>>> I did a writeup in the past on things that verifiers checks and gave it
>>> to internal folks to review. Guys have said that now they understand very
>>> well how it works, but in reality it didn't help at all to write valid programs.
>>> What worked is 'verification trace' = the instruction by instruction dump
>>> of verifier state while it's analyzing the program.
>>> I gave few simple examples of it in
>>> 'Understanding eBPF verifier messages' section:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ast/bpf.git/diff/Documentation/networking/filter.txt?id=b22459133b9f52d2176c8c0f8b5eb036478a40c9
>>> Every example there is what "program must satisfy to be valid"...
>>>
>>> Therefore I'm addressing two things:
>>> 1. how verifier works and what it checks for.
>>>   that is described in 'eBPF verifier' section of the doc and
>>>   in 200 lines of comments inside verifier.c
>>
>> That doc is pretty good.  I'll try to read it carefully soon.  Sorry
>> for the huge delay here -- I've been on vacation.
>
> I've been sitting on v4 for few weeks, since it's a merge window.
> So please hold on a careful review. I'll post v4 later today.
> Mainly I've split the verifier into several patches to make it
> easier to read.
> Thanks!

Will you be at KS / LSS / LinuxCon?

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html