Message-ID: <d3ec87a6-9049-ee3e-d8f0-e55e40ba1104@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 05:25:49 +0000
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "alexei.starovoitov@...il.com" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v4 03/12] bpf: verifier: remove dead code



On 12/31/18 5:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Instead of overwriting dead code with jmp -1 instructions
> remove it completely for root.  Adjust verifier state and
> line info appropriately.
> 
> v2:
>   - adjust func_info (Alexei);
>   - make sure first instruction retains line info (Alexei).
> v4: (Yonghong)
>   - remove unnecessary if (!insn to remove) checks;
>   - always keep last line info if first live instruction lacks one.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/filter.h |   1 +
>   kernel/bpf/core.c      |  12 +++
>   kernel/bpf/verifier.c  | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index 8c8544b375eb..2cdb50bbf867 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -782,6 +782,7 @@ static inline bool bpf_dump_raw_ok(void)
>   
>   struct bpf_prog *bpf_patch_insn_single(struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 off,
>   				       const struct bpf_insn *patch, u32 len);
> +int bpf_remove_insns(struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 off, u32 cnt);
>   
>   void bpf_clear_redirect_map(struct bpf_map *map);
>   
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index a40057b2c556..cc6fa754627c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -461,6 +461,18 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_patch_insn_single(struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 off,
>   	return prog_adj;
>   }
>   
> +int bpf_remove_insns(struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 off, u32 cnt)
> +{
> +	/* Branch offsets can't overflow when program is shrinking, no need
> +	 * to call bpf_adj_branches(..., true) here
> +	 */
> +	memmove(prog->insnsi + off, prog->insnsi + off + cnt,
> +		sizeof(struct bpf_insn) * (prog->len - off - cnt));
> +	prog->len -= cnt;
> +
> +	return WARN_ON_ONCE(bpf_adj_branches(prog, off, off + cnt, off, false));
> +}
> +
>   void bpf_prog_kallsyms_del_subprogs(struct bpf_prog *fp)
>   {
>   	int i;
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 30e2cd399b4a..2f786acb65ce 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -6233,6 +6233,141 @@ static struct bpf_prog *bpf_patch_insn_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 of
>   	return new_prog;
>   }
>   
> +static int adjust_subprog_starts_after_remove(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +					      u32 off, u32 cnt)
> +{
> +	int i, j;
> +
> +	/* find first prog starting at or after off (first to remove) */
> +	for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++)
> +		if (env->subprog_info[i].start >= off)
> +			break;
> +	/* find first prog starting at or after off + cnt (first to stay) */
> +	for (j = i; j < env->subprog_cnt; j++)
> +		if (env->subprog_info[j].start >= off + cnt)
> +			break;
> +	/* if j doesn't start exactly at off + cnt, we are just removing
> +	 * the front of previous prog
> +	 */
> +	if (env->subprog_info[j].start != off + cnt)
> +		j--;

It is possible that j = env->subprog_cnt here.

Looks like the following case is not properly covered:
for
    func1:
      insn1
      insn2
    func2:
      insn3
      insn4

   case (1): insn3 removed
   case (2): insn3 and insn4 removed, func2 subprog_info should be remeoved.

Maybe a change like below will work to include handling of the last subprog:

-       if (env->subprog_info[j].start != off + cnt)
+       if ((j == env->subprog_cnt && env->prog->len > off) ||
+           (j < env->subprog_cnt && env->subprog_info[j].start != off + 
cnt))
                 j--;



> +
> +	if (j > i) {
> +		struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = env->prog->aux;
> +		int move;
> +
> +		/* move fake 'exit' subprog as well */
> +		move = env->subprog_cnt + 1 - j;
> +
> +		memmove(env->subprog_info + i,
> +			env->subprog_info + j,
> +			sizeof(*env->subprog_info) * move);
> +		env->subprog_cnt -= j - i;
> +
> +		/* remove func_info */
> +		if (aux->func_info) {
> +			move = aux->func_info_cnt - j;
> +
> +			memmove(aux->func_info + i,
> +				aux->func_info + j,
> +				sizeof(*aux->func_info) * move);
> +			aux->func_info_cnt -= j - i;
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		/* convert i from "first prog to remove" to "first to adjust" */
> +		if (env->subprog_info[i].start == off)
> +			i++;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* update fake 'exit' subprog as well */
> +	for (; i <= env->subprog_cnt; i++)
> +		env->subprog_info[i].start -= cnt;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int bpf_adj_linfo_after_remove(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 off,
> +				      u32 cnt)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_prog *prog = env->prog;
> +	u32 i, l_off, l_cnt, nr_linfo;
> +	struct bpf_line_info *linfo;
> +
> +	nr_linfo = prog->aux->nr_linfo;
> +	if (!nr_linfo)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	linfo = prog->aux->linfo;
> +
> +	/* find first line info to remove, count lines to be removed */
> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_linfo; i++)
> +		if (linfo[i].insn_off >= off)
> +			break;
> +
> +	l_off = i;
> +	l_cnt = 0;
> +	for (; i < nr_linfo; i++)
> +		if (linfo[i].insn_off < off + cnt)
> +			l_cnt++;
> +		else
> +			break;
> +
> +	/* first live insn doesn't match first live linfo, inherit */
> +	if (prog->len != off && l_cnt &&
> +	    (i == nr_linfo || linfo[i].insn_off != off + cnt)) {
> +		l_cnt--;
> +		linfo[--i].insn_off = off + cnt;

The same here. The handling the last line_info seems not sufficient.
It depends on whether all insns covered by last linfo have been removed 
or not.

Maybe something like below?
+       if (l_cnt &&
+           ((i == nr_linfo && prog->len > off) ||
+            (i < nr_linfo && linfo[i].insn_off != off + cnt))) {
                 l_cnt--;
                 linfo[--i].insn_off = off + cnt;

Please double check whether my suggested fix is correct or not.
You may want to add test cases to cover these cases as well.

Thanks!

> +	}
> +
> +	/* remove the line info which refers to the removed instructions */
> +	if (l_cnt) {
> +		memmove(linfo + l_off, linfo + i,
> +			sizeof(*linfo) * (nr_linfo - i));
> +
> +		prog->aux->nr_linfo -= l_cnt;
> +		nr_linfo = prog->aux->nr_linfo;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* pull all linfo[i].insn_off >= off + cnt in by cnt */
> +	for (i = l_off; i < nr_linfo; i++)
> +		linfo[i].insn_off -= cnt;
> +
> +	/* fix up all subprogs (incl. 'exit') which start >= off */
> +	for (i = 0; i <= env->subprog_cnt; i++)
> +		if (env->subprog_info[i].linfo_idx > l_off) {
> +			if (env->subprog_info[i].linfo_idx >= l_off + l_cnt)
> +				env->subprog_info[i].linfo_idx -= l_cnt;
> +			else
> +				env->subprog_info[i].linfo_idx = l_off;
> +		}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int verifier_remove_insns(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 off, u32 cnt)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux_data = env->insn_aux_data;
> +	unsigned int orig_prog_len = env->prog->len;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = bpf_remove_insns(env->prog, off, cnt);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	err = adjust_subprog_starts_after_remove(env, off, cnt);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	err = bpf_adj_linfo_after_remove(env, off, cnt);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	memmove(aux_data + off,	aux_data + off + cnt,
> +		sizeof(*aux_data) * (orig_prog_len - off - cnt));
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   /* The verifier does more data flow analysis than llvm and will not
>    * explore branches that are dead at run time. Malicious programs can
>    * have dead code too. Therefore replace all dead at-run-time code
> @@ -6293,6 +6428,30 @@ static void opt_hard_wire_dead_code_branches(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>   	}
>   }
>   
> +static int opt_remove_dead_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux_data = env->insn_aux_data;
> +	int insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
> +	int i, err;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
> +		int j;
> +
> +		j = 0;
> +		while (i + j < insn_cnt && !aux_data[i + j].seen)
> +			j++;
> +		if (!j)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		err = verifier_remove_insns(env, i, j);
> +		if (err)
> +			return err;
> +		insn_cnt = env->prog->len;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   /* convert load instructions that access fields of a context type into a
>    * sequence of instructions that access fields of the underlying structure:
>    *     struct __sk_buff    -> struct sk_buff
> @@ -7032,11 +7191,13 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr,
>   	if (is_priv) {
>   		if (ret == 0)
>   			opt_hard_wire_dead_code_branches(env);
> +		if (ret == 0)
> +			ret = opt_remove_dead_code(env);
> +	} else {
> +		if (ret == 0)
> +			sanitize_dead_code(env);
>   	}
>   
> -	if (ret == 0)
> -		sanitize_dead_code(env);
> -
>   	if (ret == 0)
>   		/* program is valid, convert *(u32*)(ctx + off) accesses */
>   		ret = convert_ctx_accesses(env);
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists