On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 07:00:40PM -0700, Alex Gartrell wrote: >> mov %rsp, %r1 ; r1 = rsp >> add $-8, %r1 ; r1 = rsp - 8 >> store_q $123, -8(%rsp) ; *(u64*)r1 = 123 <- valid >> store_q $123, (%r1) ; *(u64*)r1 = 123 <- previously invalid >> mov $0, %r0 >> exit ; Always need to exit > > Is this your new eBPF assembler syntax? :) > imo gnu style looks ugly... ;)
If you think this is ugly, you'll love the "instruction" I added to be compatible with the map fd -> immediate conversion hack :) > It's great to see such in-depth understanding of verifier!! > >> And we'd get the following error: >> >> 0: (bf) r1 = r10 >> 1: (07) r1 += -8 >> 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 999 >> 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r1 +0) = 999 >> R1 invalid mem access 'fp' >> >> Unable to load program >> >> We already know that a register is a stack address and the appropriate >> offset, so we should be able to validate those references as well. > > yes, we can teach verifier to do that. > Though llvm doesn't generate such code. It's small enough change. I happened upon this as I was playing around with the bytecode in our 4.0 kernels. I believe that we can write general purpose utilities without needing to write C code for each use case that do things like filtering/counting packets or syscalls and outputting that data into maps at low cost, but I'm still just prototyping so I'm not ready to be an assertive jerk about it (yet) > real_off is missing alignment and bounds checks. > something like: > if (state->regs[regno].type == PTR_TO_STACK) > off += state->regs[regno].imm; > if (off % size != 0) > ... Yeah, I'm an idiot and assumed that a bounds check happened in the check_stack_read function. I'll find a way to do this without copy-pasta'ing but I'm going to stick to my moral high ground and not mutate a parameter (this lead to a bug in a job interview 6 years ago and I've never forgiven myself because the interviewer was an OpenBSD guy) > else if (state->regs[regno].type == FRAME_PTR || == PTR_TO_STACK) > .. as-is here ... > > would fix it. > > please add few accept and reject tests for this to test_verifier.c as well. psh, tests... I'll update this stuff and submit a patch. -- Alex Gartrell <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
