Message-ID: <e62e2971301ca7f2e9eb74fc500c520285cad8f5.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:00:11 -0700
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko
 <andrii@...nel.org>,  Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Martin KaFai
 Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,  Yonghong Song
 <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP
 Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo
 <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Matt Bobrowski
 <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>, Paul
 Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E .
 Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
 Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Ondrej Mosnacek
 <omosnace@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, John Johansen
 <john.johansen@...onical.com>, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, Shung-Hsi Yu
 <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/11] bpf: Fix a false rejection caused by
 AND operation

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
> 
> With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts
> is rejected by the verifier, and the log says:
> 
>   0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
>   ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>   0: (b7) r0 = 0                        ; R0_w=0
>   1: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)
>   func 'bpf_lsm_bpf_map' arg0 has btf_id 916 type STRUCT 'bpf_map'
>   2: R1=ctx() R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map()
>   ; if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:29
>   2: (18) r3 = 0xffff9742c0951a00       ; R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
>   4: (5d) if r2 != r3 goto pc+4         ; R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map() R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
>   ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>   5: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)          ; R0_w=scalar() R1=ctx()
>   ; if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:32
>   6: (67) r0 <<= 62                     ; R0_w=scalar(smax=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xc000000000000000,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xc000000000000000))
>   7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63                    ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
>   ;  @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:0
>   8: (57) r0 &= -13                     ; R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffff3))
>   ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>   9: (95) exit
> 
> And here is the C code of the prog.
> 
> SEC("lsm/bpf_map")
> int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode)
> {
> 	if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE)
> 		return -EACCES;
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> It is clear that the prog can only return either 0 or -EACCESS, and both
> values are legal.
> 
> So why is it rejected by the verifier?
> 
> The verifier log shows that the second if and return value setting
> statements in the prog is optimized to bitwise operations "r0 s>>= 63"
> and "r0 &= -13". The verifier correctly deduces that the the value of
> r0 is in the range [-1, 0] after verifing instruction "r0 s>>= 63".
> But when the verifier proceeds to verify instruction "r0 &= -13", it
> fails to deduce the correct value range of r0.
> 
> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63                    ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
> 8: (57) r0 &= -13                     ; R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffff3))
> 
> So why the verifier fails to deduce the result of 'r0 &= -13'?
> 
> The verifier uses tnum to track values, and the two ranges "[-1, 0]" and
> "[0, -1ULL]" are encoded to the same tnum. When verifing instruction
> "r0 &= -13", the verifier erroneously deduces the result from
> "[0, -1ULL] AND -13", which is out of the expected return range
> [-4095, 0].
> 
> To fix it, this patch simply adds a special SCALAR32 case for the
> verifier. That is, when the source operand of the AND instruction is
> a constant and the destination operand changes from negative to
> non-negative and falls in range [-256, 256], deduce the result range
> by enumerating all possible AND results.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
> ---

Hello,

Sorry for the delay, I had to think about this issue a bit.
I found the clang transformation that generates the pattern this patch
tries to handle.
It is located in DAGCombiner::SimplifySelectCC() method (see [1]).
The transformation happens as a part of DAG to DAG rewrites
(LLVM uses several internal representations:
 - generic optimizer uses LLVM IR, most of the work is done
   using this representation;
 - before instruction selection IR is converted to Selection DAG,
   some optimizations are applied at this stage,
   all such optimizations are a set of pattern replacements;
 - Selection DAG is converted to machine code, some optimizations
   are applied at the machine code level).

Full pattern is described as follows:

  // fold (select_cc seteq (and x, y), 0, 0, A) -> (and (sra (shl x)) A)
  // where y is has a single bit set.
  // A plaintext description would be, we can turn the SELECT_CC into an AND
  // when the condition can be materialized as an all-ones register.  Any
  // single bit-test can be materialized as an all-ones register with
  // shift-left and shift-right-arith.

For this particular test case the DAG is converted as follows:

                    .---------------- lhs         The meaning of this select_cc is:
                    |        .------- rhs         `lhs == rhs ? true value : false value`
                    |        | .----- true value
                    |        | |  .-- false value
                    v        v v  v 
  (select_cc seteq (and X 2) 0 0 -13)
                          ^
->                        '---------------.
  (and (sra (sll X 62) 63)                |
       -13)                               |
                                          |
Before pattern is applied, it checks that second 'and' operand has
only one bit set, (which is true for '2').

The pattern itself generates logical shift left / arithmetic shift
right pair, that ensures that result is either all ones (-1) or all
zeros (0). Hence, applying 'and' to shifts result and false value
generates a correct result.

In my opinion the approach taken by this patch is sub-optimal:
- 512 iterations is too much;
- this does not cover all code that could be generated by the above
  mentioned LLVM transformation
  (e.g. second 'and' operand could be 1 << 16).

Instead, I suggest to make a special case for source or dst register
of '&=' operation being in range [-1,0].
Meaning that one of the '&=' operands is either:
- all ones, in which case the counterpart is the result of the operation;
- all zeros, in which case zero is the result of the operation;
- derive MIN and MAX values based on above two observations.

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/4523a267829c807f3fc8fab8e5e9613985a51565/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp#L5391

Best regards,
Eduard

Powered by blists - more mailing lists