From a08dd0da5307ba01295c8383923e51e7997c3576 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:30:06 +0100 Subject: bpf: fix regression on verifier pruning wrt map lookups Commit 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers") introduced a regression where existing programs stopped loading due to reaching the verifier's maximum complexity limit, whereas prior to this commit they were loading just fine; the affected program has roughly 2k instructions. What was found is that state pruning couldn't be performed effectively anymore due to mismatches of the verifier's register state, in particular in the id tracking. It doesn't mean that 57a09bf0a416 is incorrect per se, but rather that verifier needs to perform a lot more work for the same program with regards to involved map lookups. Since commit 57a09bf0a416 is only about tracking registers with type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, the id is only needed to follow registers until they are promoted through pattern matching with a NULL check to either PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE or UNKNOWN_VALUE type. After that point, the id becomes irrelevant for the transitioned types. For UNKNOWN_VALUE, id is already reset to 0 via mark_reg_unknown_value(), but not so for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE where id is becoming stale. It's even transferred further into other types that don't make use of it. Among others, one example is where UNKNOWN_VALUE is set on function call return with RET_INTEGER return type. states_equal() will then fall through the memcmp() on register state; note that the second memcmp() uses offsetofend(), so the id is part of that since d2a4dd37f6b4 ("bpf: fix state equivalence"). But the bisect pointed already to 57a09bf0a416, where we really reach beyond complexity limit. What I found was that states_equal() often failed in this case due to id mismatches in spilled regs with registers in type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. Unlike non-spilled regs, spilled regs just perform a memcmp() on their reg state and don't have any other optimizations in place, therefore also id was relevant in this case for making a pruning decision. We can safely reset id to 0 as well when converting to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE. For the affected program, it resulted in a ~17 fold reduction of complexity and let the program load fine again. Selftest suite also runs fine. The only other place where env->id_gen is used currently is through direct packet access, but for these cases id is long living, thus a different scenario. Also, the current logic in mark_map_regs() is not fully correct when marking NULL branch with UNKNOWN_VALUE. We need to cache the destination reg's id in any case. Otherwise, once we marked that reg as UNKNOWN_VALUE, it's id is reset and any subsequent registers that hold the original id and are of type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL won't be marked UNKNOWN_VALUE anymore, since mark_map_reg() reuses the uncached regs[regno].id that was just overridden. Note, we don't need to cache it outside of mark_map_regs(), since it's called once on this_branch and the other time on other_branch, which are both two independent verifier states. A test case for this is added here, too. Fixes: 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Thomas Graf Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) (limited to 'tools') diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 0103bf2e0c0d..072dc63dc957 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -2660,6 +2660,34 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS }, + { + "multiple registers share map_lookup_elem bad reg type", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 10), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 2), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, 0, 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_3, 0, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 3), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map1 = { 4 }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R3 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS + }, { "invalid map access from else condition", .insns = { -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151 From 0eb6984f70005e792917d9e51142a57f79b32c91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:39:10 +0100 Subject: bpf, test_verifier: fix a test case error result on unprivileged Running ./test_verifier as unprivileged lets 1 out of 98 tests fail: [...] #71 unpriv: check that printk is disallowed FAIL Unexpected error message! 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r1 = r10 2: (07) r1 += -8 3: (b7) r2 = 8 4: (bf) r3 = r1 5: (85) call bpf_trace_printk#6 unknown func bpf_trace_printk#6 [...] The test case is correct, just that the error outcome changed with ebb676daa1a3 ("bpf: Print function name in addition to function id"). Same as with e00c7b216f34 ("bpf: fix multiple issues in selftest suite and samples") issue 2), so just fix up the function name. Fixes: ebb676daa1a3 ("bpf: Print function name in addition to function id") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'tools') diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 072dc63dc957..853d7e43434a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -1059,7 +1059,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .errstr_unpriv = "unknown func 6", + .errstr_unpriv = "unknown func bpf_trace_printk#6", .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151