netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf/verifier: when pruning a branch, ignore its write marks

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: <0ba423e6-8629-37b1-b772-0734f1fb5489@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:24:17 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf/verifier: when pruning a branch, ignore
 its write marks

On 8/22/17 6:27 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> The fact that writes occurred in reaching the continuation state does
>  not screen off its reads from us, because we're not really its parent.
> So detect 'not really the parent' in do_propagate_liveness, and ignore
>  write marks in that case.
>
> Fixes: dc503a8ad984 ("bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning")
> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 1e3f56c..711bdbd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -3420,6 +3420,7 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  static bool do_propagate_liveness(const struct bpf_verifier_state *state,
>  				  struct bpf_verifier_state *parent)
>  {
> +	bool writes = parent == state->parent; /* Observe write marks */
>  	bool touched = false; /* any changes made? */
>  	int i;
>
> @@ -3431,7 +3432,9 @@ static bool do_propagate_liveness(const struct bpf_verifier_state *state,
>  	for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++) {
>  		if (parent->regs[i].live & REG_LIVE_READ)
>  			continue;
> -		if (state->regs[i].live == REG_LIVE_READ) {
> +		if (writes && (state->regs[i].live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN))
> +			continue;
> +		if (state->regs[i].live & REG_LIVE_READ) {

makes sense to me.
if i understand correctly it not only should make the liveness marking
correct, but improve the numbers, since smaller number of states
will have READ marks.
Do you have a test case for this by any chance?

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>