Commit b5dc0163 authored by Alexei Starovoitov's avatar Alexei Starovoitov Committed by Daniel Borkmann
Browse files

bpf: precise scalar_value tracking



Introduce precision tracking logic that
helps cilium programs the most:
                  old clang  old clang    new clang  new clang
                          with all patches         with all patches
bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o      1838     2283         1923       1863
bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o      3218     2657         3077       2468
bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o    1064     545          1062       544
bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o  26935    23045        166729     22629
bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o   34439    35240        174607     28805
bpf_netdev.o         9721     8753         8407       6801
bpf_overlay.o        6184     7901         5420       4754
bpf_lxc_jit.o        39389    50925        39389      50925

Consider code:
654: (85) call bpf_get_hash_recalc#34
655: (bf) r7 = r0
656: (15) if r8 == 0x0 goto pc+29
657: (bf) r2 = r10
658: (07) r2 += -48
659: (18) r1 = 0xffff8881e41e1b00
661: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
662: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+23
663: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r0 +0)
664: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+21
665: (bf) r8 = r7
666: (57) r8 &= 65535
667: (bf) r2 = r8
668: (3f) r2 /= r1
669: (2f) r2 *= r1
670: (bf) r1 = r8
671: (1f) r1 -= r2
672: (57) r1 &= 255
673: (25) if r1 > 0x1e goto pc+12
 R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=20,vs=64,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=30,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f))
674: (67) r1 <<= 1
675: (0f) r0 += r1

At this point the verifier will notice that scalar R1 is used in map pointer adjustment.
R1 has to be precise for later operations on R0 to be validated properly.

The verifier will backtrack the above code in the following way:
last_idx 675 first_idx 664
regs=2 stack=0 before 675: (0f) r0 += r1         // started backtracking R1 regs=2 is a bitmask
regs=2 stack=0 before 674: (67) r1 <<= 1
regs=2 stack=0 before 673: (25) if r1 > 0x1e goto pc+12
regs=2 stack=0 before 672: (57) r1 &= 255
regs=2 stack=0 before 671: (1f) r1 -= r2         // now both R1 and R2 has to be precise -> regs=6 mask
regs=6 stack=0 before 670: (bf) r1 = r8          // after this insn R8 and R2 has to be precise
regs=104 stack=0 before 669: (2f) r2 *= r1       // after this one R8, R2, and R1
regs=106 stack=0 before 668: (3f) r2 /= r1
regs=106 stack=0 before 667: (bf) r2 = r8
regs=102 stack=0 before 666: (57) r8 &= 65535
regs=102 stack=0 before 665: (bf) r8 = r7
regs=82 stack=0 before 664: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+21
 // this is the end of verifier state. The following regs will be marked precised:
 R1_rw=invP(id=0,umax_value=65535,var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)) R7_rw=invP(id=0)
parent didn't have regs=82 stack=0 marks         // so backtracking continues into parent state
last_idx 663 first_idx 655
regs=82 stack=0 before 663: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r0 +0)   // R1 was assigned no need to track it further
regs=80 stack=0 before 662: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+23    // keep tracking R7
regs=80 stack=0 before 661: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1  // keep tracking R7
regs=80 stack=0 before 659: (18) r1 = 0xffff8881e41e1b00
regs=80 stack=0 before 658: (07) r2 += -48
regs=80 stack=0 before 657: (bf) r2 = r10
regs=80 stack=0 before 656: (15) if r8 == 0x0 goto pc+29
regs=80 stack=0 before 655: (bf) r7 = r0                // here the assignment into R7
 // mark R0 to be precise:
 R0_rw=invP(id=0)
parent didn't have regs=1 stack=0 marks                 // regs=1 -> tracking R0
last_idx 654 first_idx 644
regs=1 stack=0 before 654: (85) call bpf_get_hash_recalc#34 // and in the parent frame it was a return value
  // nothing further to backtrack

Two scalar registers not marked precise are equivalent from state pruning point of view.
More details in the patch comments.

It doesn't support bpf2bpf calls yet and enabled for root only.

Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: default avatarAndrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
parent b061017f
......@@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ struct bpf_reg_state {
*/
s32 subreg_def;
enum bpf_reg_liveness live;
/* if (!precise && SCALAR_VALUE) min/max/tnum don't affect safety */
bool precise;
};
enum bpf_stack_slot_type {
......@@ -190,6 +192,11 @@ struct bpf_func_state {
struct bpf_stack_state *stack;
};
struct bpf_idx_pair {
u32 prev_idx;
u32 idx;
};
#define MAX_CALL_FRAMES 8
struct bpf_verifier_state {
/* call stack tracking */
......@@ -245,6 +252,17 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
u32 curframe;
u32 active_spin_lock;
bool speculative;
/* first and last insn idx of this verifier state */
u32 first_insn_idx;
u32 last_insn_idx;
/* jmp history recorded from first to last.
* backtracking is using it to go from last to first.
* For most states jmp_history_cnt is [0-3].
* For loops can go up to ~40.
*/
struct bpf_idx_pair *jmp_history;
u32 jmp_history_cnt;
};
#define bpf_get_spilled_reg(slot, frame) \
......
This diff is collapsed.
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment