netdev - [PATCH bpf-next 02/19] bpf: verifier: teach the verifier to reason about the BPF

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: <20181219182930.8825-3-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:29:13 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     oss-drivers@...ronome.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 02/19] bpf: verifier: teach the verifier to reason about the BPF_JSET instruction

Some JITs (nfp) try to optimize code on their own.  It could make
sense in case of BPF_JSET instruction which is currently not interpreted
by the verifier, meaning for instance that dead could would not be
detected if it was under BPF_JSET branch.

Teach the verifier basics of BPF_JSET, JIT optimizations will be
removed shortly.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 7cd8cde01d08..7857c2625a64 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3859,6 +3859,12 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode)
 		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
 			return !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val);
 		break;
+	case BPF_JSET:
+		if ((~reg->var_off.mask & reg->var_off.value) & val)
+			return 1;
+		if (!((reg->var_off.mask | reg->var_off.value) & val))
+			return 0;
+		break;
 	case BPF_JGT:
 		if (reg->umin_value > val)
 			return 1;
@@ -3943,6 +3949,13 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
 		 */
 		__mark_reg_known(false_reg, val);
 		break;
+	case BPF_JSET:
+		false_reg->var_off = tnum_and(false_reg->var_off,
+					      tnum_const(~val));
+		if (is_power_of_2(val))
+			true_reg->var_off = tnum_or(true_reg->var_off,
+						    tnum_const(val));
+		break;
 	case BPF_JGT:
 		false_reg->umax_value = min(false_reg->umax_value, val);
 		true_reg->umin_value = max(true_reg->umin_value, val + 1);
@@ -4015,6 +4028,13 @@ static void reg_set_min_max_inv(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
 		 */
 		__mark_reg_known(false_reg, val);
 		break;
+	case BPF_JSET:
+		false_reg->var_off = tnum_and(false_reg->var_off,
+					      tnum_const(~val));
+		if (is_power_of_2(val))
+			true_reg->var_off = tnum_or(true_reg->var_off,
+						    tnum_const(val));
+		break;
 	case BPF_JGT:
 		true_reg->umax_value = min(true_reg->umax_value, val - 1);
 		false_reg->umin_value = max(false_reg->umin_value, val);
-- 
2.19.2