On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:06:13PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> When BPF_FETCH is set, atomic instructions load a value from memory
> into a register. The current verifier code first checks via
> check_mem_access whether we can access the memory, and then checks
> via check_reg_arg whether we can write into the register.
>
> For loads, check_reg_arg has the side-effect of marking the
> register's value as unkonwn, and check_mem_access has the side effect
> of propagating bounds from memory to the register.
>
> Therefore with the current order, bounds information is thrown away,
> but by simply reversing the order of check_reg_arg
> vs. check_mem_access, we can instead propagate bounds smartly.
I think such improvement makes sense, but please tweak commit log
to mention that check_mem_access() is doing it only for stack pointers.
Since "propagating from memory" is too generic. Most memory
won't have such propagation.
> A simple test is added with an infinite loop that can only be proved
> unreachable if this propagation is present.
>
> Note that in the test, the memory value has to be written with two
> instructions:
>
> BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
>
> instead of one:
>
> BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
>
> Because BPF_ST_MEM doesn't seem to set the stack slot type to 0 when
> storing an immediate.
This bit is confusing in the commit log. Pls move it into test itself.
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackm...@google.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 32 +++++++++++--------
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c | 18 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 0f82d5d46e2c..0512695c70f4 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -3663,9 +3663,26 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> return -EACCES;
> }
>
> + if (insn->imm & BPF_FETCH) {
> + if (insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG)
> + load_reg = BPF_REG_0;
> + else
> + load_reg = insn->src_reg;
> +
> + /* check and record load of old value */
> + err = check_reg_arg(env, load_reg, DST_OP);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + } else {
> + /* This instruction accesses a memory location but doesn't
> + * actually load it into a register.
> + */
> + load_reg = -1;
> + }
> +
> /* check whether we can read the memory */
> err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off,
> - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1, true);
> + BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, load_reg, true);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> @@ -3675,19 +3692,6 @@ static int check_atomic(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> int insn_idx, struct bpf_i
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - if (!(insn->imm & BPF_FETCH))
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG)
> - load_reg = BPF_REG_0;
> - else
> - load_reg = insn->src_reg;
> -
> - /* check and record load of old value */
> - err = check_reg_arg(env, load_reg, DST_OP);
> - if (err)
> - return err;
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..45030165ed63
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_bounds.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +{
> + "BPF_ATOMIC bounds propagation, mem->reg",
> + .insns = {
> + /* a = 0; */
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
> + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
> + /* b = atomic_fetch_add(&a, 1); */
> + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
> + BPF_ATOMIC_OP(BPF_DW, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH, BPF_REG_10,
> BPF_REG_1, -8),
> + /* Verifier should be able to tell that this infinite loop
> isn't reachable. */
> + /* if (b) while (true) continue; */
> + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, -1),
> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
I think it's a bit unrealistic to use atomic_add to increment induction
variable,
but I don't mind, since the verifier side is simple.
Could you add a C based test as well?
