From 4f7b3e82589e0de723780198ec7983e427144c0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:46:05 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] bpf: improve verifier branch analysis pathological bpf programs may try to force verifier to explode in the number of branch states: 20: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x24000028 goto pc+0 21: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe1fa20 goto pc+2 22: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x7e goto pc+0 23: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe880e000 goto pc+0 24: (c5) if r0 s< 0x2100ecf4 goto pc+0 25: (d5) if r1 s<= 0xe880e000 goto pc+1 26: (c5) if r0 s< 0xf4041810 goto pc+0 27: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x1e007e goto pc+0 28: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe86be000 goto pc+0 29: (07) r0 += 16614 30: (c5) if r0 s< 0x6d0020da goto pc+0 31: (35) if r0 >= 0x2100ecf4 goto pc+0 Teach verifier to recognize always taken and always not taken branches. This analysis is already done for == and != comparison. Expand it to all other branches. It also helps real bpf programs to be verified faster: before after bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 2003 1940 bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3173 3089 bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1080 1065 bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 29584 28052 bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 36916 35487 bpf_netdev.o 11188 10864 bpf_overlay.o 6679 6643 bpf_lcx_jit.o 39555 38437 Reported-by: Anatoly Trosinenko Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++--- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 4 +- 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 751bb30b7c5c..55a49703f423 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -3751,6 +3751,79 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate, } } +/* compute branch direction of the expression "if (reg opcode val) goto target;" + * and return: + * 1 - branch will be taken and "goto target" will be executed + * 0 - branch will not be taken and fall-through to next insn + * -1 - unknown. Example: "if (reg < 5)" is unknown when register value range [0,10] + */ +static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode) +{ + if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg)) + return -1; + + switch (opcode) { + case BPF_JEQ: + if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) + return !!tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val); + break; + case BPF_JNE: + if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) + return !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val); + break; + case BPF_JGT: + if (reg->umin_value > val) + return 1; + else if (reg->umax_value <= val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JSGT: + if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val) + return 1; + else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JLT: + if (reg->umax_value < val) + return 1; + else if (reg->umin_value >= val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JSLT: + if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val) + return 1; + else if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JGE: + if (reg->umin_value >= val) + return 1; + else if (reg->umax_value < val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JSGE: + if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val) + return 1; + else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JLE: + if (reg->umax_value <= val) + return 1; + else if (reg->umin_value > val) + return 0; + break; + case BPF_JSLE: + if (reg->smax_value <= (s64)val) + return 1; + else if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val) + return 0; + break; + } + + return -1; +} + /* Adjusts the register min/max values in the case that the dst_reg is the * variable register that we are working on, and src_reg is a constant or we're * simply doing a BPF_K check. @@ -4152,21 +4225,15 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg = ®s[insn->dst_reg]; - /* detect if R == 0 where R was initialized to zero earlier */ - if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K && - (opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE) && - dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && - tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off)) { - if ((opcode == BPF_JEQ && dst_reg->var_off.value == insn->imm) || - (opcode == BPF_JNE && dst_reg->var_off.value != insn->imm)) { - /* if (imm == imm) goto pc+off; - * only follow the goto, ignore fall-through - */ + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) { + int pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, insn->imm, opcode); + + if (pred == 1) { + /* only follow the goto, ignore fall-through */ *insn_idx += insn->off; return 0; - } else { - /* if (imm != imm) goto pc+off; - * only follow fall-through branch, since + } else if (pred == 0) { + /* only follow fall-through branch, since * that's where the program will go */ return 0; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 5dd4410a716c..df6f751cc1e8 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -8576,7 +8576,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7), }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 }, - .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -10547,7 +10547,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { "check deducing bounds from const, 5", .insns = { BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), - BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, -- 2.30.2