From: Edward Cree ecree@solarflare.com
mainline inclusion from mainline-v4.20-rc1 commit 679c782de14bd48c19dd74cd1af20a2bc05dd936 category: feature bugzilla: 43460 CVE: NA
--------------------------------------- By giving each register its own liveness chain, we elide the skip_callee() logic. Instead, each register's parent is the state it inherits from; both check_func_call() and prepare_func_exit() automatically connect reg states to the correct chain since when they copy the reg state across (r1-r5 into the callee as args, and r0 out as the return value) they also copy the parent pointer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree ecree@solarflare.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org
Conflicts: kernel/bpf/verifier.c [liuxin:solve the conflicts in verifier.c]
Signed-off-by: liuxin liuxin264@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Cheng Jian cj.chengjian@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang yangyingliang@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun weiyongjun1@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang yangyingliang@huawei.com --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 8 +- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 183 +++++++++-------------------------- 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index 1c8517320ea64..daab0960c0544 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ enum bpf_reg_liveness { };
struct bpf_reg_state { + /* Ordering of fields matters. See states_equal() */ enum bpf_reg_type type; union { /* valid when type == PTR_TO_PACKET */ @@ -62,7 +63,6 @@ struct bpf_reg_state { * came from, when one is tested for != NULL. */ u32 id; - /* Ordering of fields matters. See states_equal() */ /* For scalar types (SCALAR_VALUE), this represents our knowledge of * the actual value. * For pointer types, this represents the variable part of the offset @@ -79,15 +79,15 @@ struct bpf_reg_state { s64 smax_value; /* maximum possible (s64)value */ u64 umin_value; /* minimum possible (u64)value */ u64 umax_value; /* maximum possible (u64)value */ + /* parentage chain for liveness checking */ + struct bpf_reg_state *parent; /* Inside the callee two registers can be both PTR_TO_STACK like * R1=fp-8 and R2=fp-8, but one of them points to this function stack * while another to the caller's stack. To differentiate them 'frameno' * is used which is an index in bpf_verifier_state->frame[] array * pointing to bpf_func_state. - * This field must be second to last, for states_equal() reasons. */ u32 frameno; - /* This field must be last, for states_equal() reasons. */ enum bpf_reg_liveness live; };
@@ -110,7 +110,6 @@ struct bpf_stack_state { */ struct bpf_func_state { struct bpf_reg_state regs[MAX_BPF_REG]; - struct bpf_verifier_state *parent; /* index of call instruction that called into this func */ int callsite; /* stack frame number of this function state from pov of @@ -132,7 +131,6 @@ struct bpf_func_state { struct bpf_verifier_state { /* call stack tracking */ struct bpf_func_state *frame[MAX_CALL_FRAMES]; - struct bpf_verifier_state *parent; u32 curframe; bool speculative; }; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 650cec781f5a8..0bb6664ced7e1 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -381,9 +381,9 @@ static int copy_stack_state(struct bpf_func_state *dst, /* do_check() starts with zero-sized stack in struct bpf_verifier_state to * make it consume minimal amount of memory. check_stack_write() access from * the program calls into realloc_func_state() to grow the stack size. - * Note there is a non-zero 'parent' pointer inside bpf_verifier_state - * which this function copies over. It points to previous bpf_verifier_state - * which is never reallocated + * Note there is a non-zero parent pointer inside each reg of bpf_verifier_state + * which this function copies over. It points to corresponding reg in previous + * bpf_verifier_state which is never reallocated */ static int realloc_func_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int size, bool copy_old) @@ -468,7 +468,6 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state, } dst_state->speculative = src->speculative; dst_state->curframe = src->curframe; - dst_state->parent = src->parent; for (i = 0; i <= src->curframe; i++) { dst = dst_state->frame[i]; if (!dst) { @@ -740,6 +739,7 @@ static void init_reg_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++) { mark_reg_not_init(env, regs, i); regs[i].live = REG_LIVE_NONE; + regs[i].parent = NULL; }
/* frame pointer */ @@ -884,74 +884,21 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return 0; }
-static -struct bpf_verifier_state *skip_callee(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, - const struct bpf_verifier_state *state, - struct bpf_verifier_state *parent, - u32 regno) -{ - struct bpf_verifier_state *tmp = NULL; - - /* 'parent' could be a state of caller and - * 'state' could be a state of callee. In such case - * parent->curframe < state->curframe - * and it's ok for r1 - r5 registers - * - * 'parent' could be a callee's state after it bpf_exit-ed. - * In such case parent->curframe > state->curframe - * and it's ok for r0 only - */ - if (parent->curframe == state->curframe || - (parent->curframe < state->curframe && - regno >= BPF_REG_1 && regno <= BPF_REG_5) || - (parent->curframe > state->curframe && - regno == BPF_REG_0)) - return parent; - - if (parent->curframe > state->curframe && - regno >= BPF_REG_6) { - /* for callee saved regs we have to skip the whole chain - * of states that belong to callee and mark as LIVE_READ - * the registers before the call - */ - tmp = parent; - while (tmp && tmp->curframe != state->curframe) { - tmp = tmp->parent; - } - if (!tmp) - goto bug; - parent = tmp; - } else { - goto bug; - } - return parent; -bug: - verbose(env, "verifier bug regno %d tmp %p\n", regno, tmp); - verbose(env, "regno %d parent frame %d current frame %d\n", - regno, parent->curframe, state->curframe); - return NULL; -} - +/* Parentage chain of this register (or stack slot) should take care of all + * issues like callee-saved registers, stack slot allocation time, etc. + */ static int mark_reg_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, - const struct bpf_verifier_state *state, - struct bpf_verifier_state *parent, - u32 regno) + const struct bpf_reg_state *state, + struct bpf_reg_state *parent) { bool writes = parent == state->parent; /* Observe write marks */
- if (regno == BPF_REG_FP) - /* We don't need to worry about FP liveness because it's read-only */ - return 0; - while (parent) { /* if read wasn't screened by an earlier write ... */ - if (writes && state->frame[state->curframe]->regs[regno].live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN) + if (writes && state->live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN) break; - parent = skip_callee(env, state, parent, regno); - if (!parent) - return -EFAULT; /* ... then we depend on parent's value */ - parent->frame[parent->curframe]->regs[regno].live |= REG_LIVE_READ; + parent->live |= REG_LIVE_READ; state = parent; parent = state->parent; writes = true; @@ -977,7 +924,10 @@ static int check_reg_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, verbose(env, "R%d !read_ok\n", regno); return -EACCES; } - return mark_reg_read(env, vstate, vstate->parent, regno); + /* We don't need to worry about FP liveness because it's read-only */ + if (regno != BPF_REG_FP) + return mark_reg_read(env, ®s[regno], + regs[regno].parent); } else { /* check whether register used as dest operand can be written to */ if (regno == BPF_REG_FP) { @@ -1088,8 +1038,8 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } else { u8 type = STACK_MISC;
- /* regular write of data into stack */ - state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = (struct bpf_reg_state) {}; + /* regular write of data into stack destroys any spilled ptr */ + state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.type = NOT_INIT;
/* only mark the slot as written if all 8 bytes were written * otherwise read propagation may incorrectly stop too soon @@ -1114,61 +1064,6 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return 0; }
-/* registers of every function are unique and mark_reg_read() propagates - * the liveness in the following cases: - * - from callee into caller for R1 - R5 that were used as arguments - * - from caller into callee for R0 that used as result of the call - * - from caller to the same caller skipping states of the callee for R6 - R9, - * since R6 - R9 are callee saved by implicit function prologue and - * caller's R6 != callee's R6, so when we propagate liveness up to - * parent states we need to skip callee states for R6 - R9. - * - * stack slot marking is different, since stacks of caller and callee are - * accessible in both (since caller can pass a pointer to caller's stack to - * callee which can pass it to another function), hence mark_stack_slot_read() - * has to propagate the stack liveness to all parent states at given frame number. - * Consider code: - * f1() { - * ptr = fp - 8; - * *ptr = ctx; - * call f2 { - * .. = *ptr; - * } - * .. = *ptr; - * } - * First *ptr is reading from f1's stack and mark_stack_slot_read() has - * to mark liveness at the f1's frame and not f2's frame. - * Second *ptr is also reading from f1's stack and mark_stack_slot_read() has - * to propagate liveness to f2 states at f1's frame level and further into - * f1 states at f1's frame level until write into that stack slot - */ -static void mark_stack_slot_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, - const struct bpf_verifier_state *state, - struct bpf_verifier_state *parent, - int slot, int frameno) -{ - bool writes = parent == state->parent; /* Observe write marks */ - - while (parent) { - if (parent->frame[frameno]->allocated_stack <= slot * BPF_REG_SIZE) - /* since LIVE_WRITTEN mark is only done for full 8-byte - * write the read marks are conservative and parent - * state may not even have the stack allocated. In such case - * end the propagation, since the loop reached beginning - * of the function - */ - break; - /* if read wasn't screened by an earlier write ... */ - if (writes && state->frame[frameno]->stack[slot].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_WRITTEN) - break; - /* ... then we depend on parent's value */ - parent->frame[frameno]->stack[slot].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_READ; - state = parent; - parent = state->parent; - writes = true; - } -} - static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_state *reg_state /* func where register points to */, int off, int size, int value_regno) @@ -1206,8 +1101,8 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, */ state->regs[value_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; } - mark_stack_slot_read(env, vstate, vstate->parent, spi, - reg_state->frameno); + mark_reg_read(env, ®_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, + reg_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.parent); return 0; } else { int zeros = 0; @@ -1223,8 +1118,8 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, off, i, size); return -EACCES; } - mark_stack_slot_read(env, vstate, vstate->parent, spi, - reg_state->frameno); + mark_reg_read(env, ®_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, + reg_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.parent); if (value_regno >= 0) { if (zeros == size) { /* any size read into register is zero extended, @@ -1958,8 +1853,8 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, /* reading any byte out of 8-byte 'spill_slot' will cause * the whole slot to be marked as 'read' */ - mark_stack_slot_read(env, env->cur_state, env->cur_state->parent, - spi, state->frameno); + mark_reg_read(env, &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, + state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.parent); } return update_stack_depth(env, state, off); } @@ -2415,11 +2310,13 @@ static int check_func_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, state->curframe + 1 /* frameno within this callchain */, subprog /* subprog number within this prog */);
- /* copy r1 - r5 args that callee can access */ + /* copy r1 - r5 args that callee can access. The copy includes parent + * pointers, which connects us up to the liveness chain + */ for (i = BPF_REG_1; i <= BPF_REG_5; i++) callee->regs[i] = caller->regs[i];
- /* after the call regsiters r0 - r5 were scratched */ + /* after the call registers r0 - r5 were scratched */ for (i = 0; i < CALLER_SAVED_REGS; i++) { mark_reg_not_init(env, caller->regs, caller_saved[i]); check_reg_arg(env, caller_saved[i], DST_OP_NO_MARK); @@ -5058,7 +4955,7 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state *rold, struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, /* explored state didn't use this */ return true;
- equal = memcmp(rold, rcur, offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, frameno)) == 0; + equal = memcmp(rold, rcur, offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, parent)) == 0;
if (rold->type == PTR_TO_STACK) /* two stack pointers are equal only if they're pointing to @@ -5297,7 +5194,7 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * equivalent state (jump target or such) we didn't arrive by the straight-line * code, so read marks in the state must propagate to the parent regardless * of the state's write marks. That's what 'parent == state->parent' comparison - * in mark_reg_read() and mark_stack_slot_read() is for. + * in mark_reg_read() is for. */ static int propagate_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate, @@ -5318,7 +5215,8 @@ static int propagate_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (vparent->frame[vparent->curframe]->regs[i].live & REG_LIVE_READ) continue; if (vstate->frame[vstate->curframe]->regs[i].live & REG_LIVE_READ) { - err = mark_reg_read(env, vstate, vparent, i); + err = mark_reg_read(env, &vstate->frame[vstate->curframe]->regs[i], + &vparent->frame[vstate->curframe]->regs[i]); if (err) return err; } @@ -5333,7 +5231,8 @@ static int propagate_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (parent->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_READ) continue; if (state->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_READ) - mark_stack_slot_read(env, vstate, vparent, i, frame); + mark_reg_read(env, &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr, + &parent->stack[i].spilled_ptr); } } return err; @@ -5343,7 +5242,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx) { struct bpf_verifier_state_list *new_sl; struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl; - struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state; + struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new; int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
sl = env->explored_states[insn_idx]; @@ -5389,16 +5288,18 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx) return -ENOMEM;
/* add new state to the head of linked list */ - err = copy_verifier_state(&new_sl->state, cur); + new = &new_sl->state; + err = copy_verifier_state(new, cur); if (err) { - free_verifier_state(&new_sl->state, false); + free_verifier_state(new, false); kfree(new_sl); return err; } new_sl->next = env->explored_states[insn_idx]; env->explored_states[insn_idx] = new_sl; /* connect new state to parentage chain */ - cur->parent = &new_sl->state; + for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++) + cur_regs(env)[i].parent = &new->frame[new->curframe]->regs[i]; /* clear write marks in current state: the writes we did are not writes * our child did, so they don't screen off its reads from us. * (There are no read marks in current state, because reads always mark @@ -5411,9 +5312,13 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx) /* all stack frames are accessible from callee, clear them all */ for (j = 0; j <= cur->curframe; j++) { struct bpf_func_state *frame = cur->frame[j]; + struct bpf_func_state *newframe = new->frame[j];
- for (i = 0; i < frame->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) + for (i = 0; i < frame->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { frame->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live = REG_LIVE_NONE; + frame->stack[i].spilled_ptr.parent = + &newframe->stack[i].spilled_ptr; + } } return 0; }