check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Subsystems (4)
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerv2 cover check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
This patch-set fixes bug in states pruning logic hit in mailing list discussion [0]. The details of the fix are in patch #2.
A change to the test case test_tcp_custom_syncookie.c is necessary, otherwise updated verifier won't be able to process it due to instruction complexity limit. This change is done in patch #1.
The main idea for the fix belongs to Yonghong Song, mine contribution is merely in review and test cases.
There are some changes in verification performance:
File Program Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF) ------------------------- -------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +53 (+1.09%) 323 330 +7 (+2.17%) strobemeta_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event +594 (+27.85%) 163 213 +50 (+30.67%)
(when tested using BPF selftests and Cilium object files)
Changelog:
v1 [1] -> v2:
- patch #2 commit message updated to better reflect verifier behavior with regards to checkpoints tree (suggested by Yonghong);
- veristat results added (suggested by Andrii).
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Eduard Zingerman (3):
selftests/bpf: update tcp_custom_syncookie to use scalar packet offset
bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 + .../bpf/progs/test_tcp_custom_syncookie.c | 83 ++++++++++++------- .../bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerPATCH v2 1/3 selftests/bpf: update tcp_custom_syncookie to use scalar packet offset
The next commit in a series fixes bug in bpf_loop() handling. That change makes tcp_custom_syncookie test too complex to verify.
This commit updates tcp_custom_syncookie.c:tcp_parse_option() to use explicit packet offset (ctx->off) for packet access instead of ever moving pointer (ctx->ptr), this reduces verification complexity:
- the tcp_parse_option() is passed as a callback to bpf_loop();
- suppose a checkpoint is created each time at function entry;
- the ctx->ptr is tracked by verifier as PTR_TO_PACKET;
- the ctx->ptr is incremented in tcp_parse_option(),
thus umax_value field tracked for it is incremented as well;
- on each next iteration of tcp_parse_option()
checkpoint from a previous iteration can't be reused for state pruning, because PTR_TO_PACKET registers are considered equivalent only if old->umax_value >= cur->umax_value;
- on the other hand, the ctx->off is a SCALAR,
subject to widen_imprecise_scalars();
- it's exact bounds are eventually forgotten and it is tracked as unknown scalar at entry to tcp_parse_option();
- hence checkpoints created at the start of the function eventually converge.
The change is similar to one applied in [0] to xdp_synproxy_kern.c.
[0] commit 977bc146d4eb ("selftests/bpf: track tcp payload offset as scalar in xdp_synproxy")
--- .../bpf/progs/test_tcp_custom_syncookie.c | 83 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tcp_custom_syncookie.c +53 -30
@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@#include "test_siphash.h" #include "test_tcp_custom_syncookie.h" +#define MAX_PACKET_OFF 0xffff +/* Hash is calculated for each client and split into ISN and TS. * * MSB LSB
@@ -52,16 +54,15 @@ static siphash_key_t test_key_siphash = {struct tcp_syncookie {struct __sk_buff *skb; +void *data;void *data_end;struct ethhdr *eth;struct iphdr *ipv4;struct ipv6hdr *ipv6;struct tcphdr *tcp; -union { -char *ptr; -__be32 *ptr32; - }; +__be32 *ptr32;struct bpf_tcp_req_attrs attrs; +u32 off;u32 cookie;u64 first; };
@@ -70,6 +71,7 @@ bool handled_syn, handled_ack;static int tcp_load_headers (struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) { + ctx->data = (void *)(long )ctx->skb->data; ctx->data_end = (void *)(long )ctx->skb->data_end; ctx->eth = (struct ethhdr *)(long )ctx->skb->data;
@@ -134,6 +136,7 @@ static int tcp_reload_headers(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx)if (bpf_skb_change_tail (ctx->skb, data_len +60 - ctx->tcp->doff *4 ,0 )) goto err; + ctx->data = (void *)(long )ctx->skb->data; ctx->data_end = (void *)(long )ctx->skb->data_end; ctx->eth = (struct ethhdr *)(long )ctx->skb->data;if (ctx->ipv4) {
@@ -195,47 +198,68 @@ static int tcp_validate_header(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx)return -1 ; } -static int tcp_parse_option (__u32 index,struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) +static __always_inline void *next(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx, __u32 sz) { -char opcode, opsize; +__u64 off = ctx->off; +__u8 *data; -if (ctx->ptr +1 > ctx->data_end) - goto stop; +/* Verifier forbids access to packet when offset exceeds MAX_PACKET_OFF */ +if (off >MAX_PACKET_OFF - sz) +return NULL ; + + data = ctx->data + off; +barrier_var (data); +if (data + sz >= ctx->data_end) +return NULL ; - opcode = *ctx->ptr++; + ctx->off += sz; +return data; +} -if (opcode ==TCPOPT_EOL ) +static int tcp_parse_option (__u32 index,struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) +{ +__u8 *opcode, *opsize, *wscale; +__u32 *tsval, *tsecr; +__u16 *mss; +__u32 off; + + off = ctx->off; + opcode =next (ctx,1 ); +if (!opcode) goto stop; -if (opcode ==TCPOPT_NOP ) +if (*opcode ==TCPOPT_EOL ) + goto stop; + +if (*opcode ==TCPOPT_NOP ) goto next; -if (ctx->ptr +1 > ctx->data_end) + opsize =next (ctx,1 ); +if (!opsize) goto stop; - opsize = *ctx->ptr++; - -if (opsize <2 ) +if (*opsize <2 ) goto stop; -switch (opcode) { +switch (*opcode) {case TCPOPT_MSS : -if (opsize ==TCPOLEN_MSS && ctx->tcp->syn && - ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_MSS -2 ) < ctx->data_end) - ctx->attrs.mss =get_unaligned_be16 (ctx->ptr); + mss =next (ctx,2 ); +if (*opsize ==TCPOLEN_MSS && ctx->tcp->syn && mss) + ctx->attrs.mss =get_unaligned_be16 (mss);break ;case TCPOPT_WINDOW : -if (opsize ==TCPOLEN_WINDOW && ctx->tcp->syn && - ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_WINDOW -2 ) < ctx->data_end) { + wscale =next (ctx,1 ); +if (*opsize ==TCPOLEN_WINDOW && ctx->tcp->syn && wscale) { ctx->attrs.wscale_ok =1 ; - ctx->attrs.snd_wscale = *ctx->ptr; + ctx->attrs.snd_wscale = *wscale; }break ;case TCPOPT_TIMESTAMP : -if (opsize ==TCPOLEN_TIMESTAMP && - ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_TIMESTAMP -2 ) < ctx->data_end) { - ctx->attrs.rcv_tsval =get_unaligned_be32 (ctx->ptr); - ctx->attrs.rcv_tsecr =get_unaligned_be32 (ctx->ptr +4 ); + tsval =next (ctx,4 ); + tsecr =next (ctx,4 ); +if (*opsize ==TCPOLEN_TIMESTAMP && tsval && tsecr) { + ctx->attrs.rcv_tsval =get_unaligned_be32 (tsval); + ctx->attrs.rcv_tsecr =get_unaligned_be32 (tsecr);if (ctx->tcp->syn && ctx->attrs.rcv_tsecr) ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok =0 ;
@@ -244,13 +268,12 @@ static int tcp_parse_option(__u32 index, struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) }break ;case TCPOPT_SACK_PERM : -if (opsize ==TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM && ctx->tcp->syn && - ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM -2 ) < ctx->data_end) +if (*opsize ==TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM && ctx->tcp->syn) ctx->attrs.sack_ok =1 ;break ; } - ctx->ptr += opsize -2 ; + ctx->off = off + *opsize; next:return 0 ; stop:
@@ -259,7 +282,7 @@ static int tcp_parse_option(__u32 index, struct tcp_syncookie *ctx)static void tcp_parse_options (struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) { - ctx->ptr = (char *)(ctx->tcp +1 ); + ctx->off = (__u8 *)(ctx->tcp +1 ) - (__u8 *)ctx->data,bpf_loop (40 , tcp_parse_option, ctx,0 ); }
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerPATCH v2 2/3 bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
In reply to Eduard ZingermanWhen comparing current and cached states verifier should consider bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it's callback_depth is smaller.
Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list discussion [0].
The example is not a safe program: if loop_cb point (1) is followed by loop_cb point (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).
struct ctx {
__u64 a;
__u64 b;
__u64 c;
};
static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx)
{
/* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first":
* if ... == 1 goto
* if ... == 2 goto
* <default>
*/
switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
case 1: /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break;
case 2: /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break;
default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break;
}
}
SEC("tc")
__failure
__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
int test(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0); /* 0 */
/* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */
if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0"); /* 4 */
return 0;
}Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for this example:
.------------------------------------- Checkpoint / State name
| .-------------------------------- Code point number
| | .---------------------------- Stack state {ctx.a,ctx.b,ctx.c}
| | | .------------------- Callback depth in frame #0
v v v v - (0) {7P,7P,7},depth=0
- (3) {7P,7P,7},depth=1
- (0) {7P,7P,42},depth=1
- (3) {7P,7,42},depth=2
- (0) {7P,7,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,7,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
- (2) {7P,7,42},depth=2
(a) - (0) {7P,42,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,42,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
(b) - (1) {7P,7P,42},depth=2
- (0) {42P,7P,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42P,7P,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.{a,b} marked precise
- (6) exit
- (2) {7P,7,7},depth=1
- (0) {7P,42,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (a)
(c) - (1) {7P,7P,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (b)
Here checkpoint (b) has callback_depth of 2, meaning that it would never reach state {42,42,7}.
While checkpoint (c) has callback_depth of 1, and thus could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely. This commit makes forbids such premature pruning, allowing verifier to explore states sub-tree starting at (c):
(c) - (1) {7,7,7P},depth=1
- (0) {42P,7,7P},depth=1
...
- (2) {42,7,7},depth=2
- (0) {42,42,7},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42,42,7},depth=0 predicted true, ctx.{a,b,c} marked precise
- (5) division by zero
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
--- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +3 -0
@@ -16705,6 +16705,9 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat {int i; +if (old->callback_depth > cur->callback_depth) +return false; +for (i =0 ; i <MAX_BPF_REG ; i++)if (!regsafe (env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i], &env->idmap_scratch, exact))
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Quoted 88 lines · Eduard Zingerman
When comparing current and cached states verifier should consider
bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it'scallback_depthis smaller.Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list discussion [0].
The example is not a safe program: ifloop_cbpoint (1) is followed byloop_cbpoint (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).struct ctx { __u64 a; __u64 b; __u64 c; }; static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx) { /* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first": * if ... == 1 goto * if ... == 2 goto * <default> */ switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) { case 1: /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break; case 2: /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break; default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break; } } SEC("tc") __failure __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ) int test(struct __sk_buff *skb) { struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 }; bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0); /* 0 */ /* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */ if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7) asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0"); /* 4 */ return 0; }Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for this example:
.------------------------------------- Checkpoint / State name
| .-------------------------------- Code point number | | .---------------------------- Stack state {ctx.a,ctx.b,ctx.c} | | | .------------------- Callback depth in frame #0 v v v v- (0) {7P,7P,7},depth=0
- (3) {7P,7P,7},depth=1
- (0) {7P,7P,42},depth=1
- (3) {7P,7,42},depth=2
- (0) {7P,7,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,7,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
- (2) {7P,7,42},depth=2
(a) - (0) {7P,42,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,42,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
(b) - (1) {7P,7P,42},depth=2
- (0) {42P,7P,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42P,7P,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.{a,b} marked precise
- (6) exit
- (2) {7P,7,7},depth=1
- (0) {7P,42,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (a)
(c) - (1) {7P,7P,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (b)Here checkpoint (b) has
callback_depthof 2, meaning that it would never reach state {42,42,7}.
While checkpoint (c) hascallback_depthof 1, and thus could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely. This commit makes forbids such premature pruning, allowing verifier to explore states sub-tree starting at (c):(c) - (1) {7,7,7P},depth=1
- (0) {42P,7,7P},depth=1
...
- (2) {42,7,7},depth=2
- (0) {42,42,7},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42,42,7},depth=0 predicted true, ctx.{a,b,c} marked precise
- (5) division by zero
Quoted 8 lines
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Suggested-by Yonghong Song <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>--- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
Missing Fixes: tag? Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
Otherwise everything looks good.
Quoted 17 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +3
-1@@ -16705,6 +16705,9 @@ static bool func_states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_stat {int i; +if (old->callback_depth > cur->callback_depth) +return false; +for (i =0 ; i <MAX_BPF_REG ; i++)if (!regsafe (env, &old->regs[i], &cur->regs[i], &env->idmap_scratch, exact)) --2.43.0
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerRe: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
On Fri, 2024-02-16 at 10:16 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
Quoted 1 line
Missing Fixes: tag?
Right, sorry aboutt that
Quoted 1 line
Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
Will re-send v3 with fixes tag to 'bpf'
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerRe: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
On Sat, 2024-02-17 at 20:19 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
Will re-send v3 with fixes tag to 'bpf'
Sending via 'bpf' tree would require dropping patch #1. The test_tcp_custom_syncookie is not yet in 'bpf'. Note that patch #2 breaks syncookie test w/o patch #1. Should I split this in two parts?
- patch #1 - send via bpf-next
- patch #2,3 - send via bpf
Yonghong Song
reviewerRe: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Quoted 11 lines · Eduard Zingerman
On Sat, 2024-02-17 at 20:19 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 1 line
Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
Will re-send v3 with fixes tag to 'bpf'
Sending via 'bpf' tree would require dropping patch #1. The
test_tcp_custom_syncookieis not yet in 'bpf'. Note that patch #2 breaks syncookie test w/o patch #1. Should I split this in two parts?
- patch #1 - send via bpf-next
- patch #2,3 - send via bpf
Sounds good to me. Patch 1 will likely to be merged in bpf-next before patch 2/3 merged in bpf tree and circulared back to bpf-next. Please add related commit message in Patch 1 to explain actual fix will go to bpf tree and will be back to bpf-next later.
Eduard Zingerman
maintainerPATCH v2 3/3 selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic
In reply to Eduard ZingermanThe test case was minimized from mailing list discussion [0]. It is equivalent to the following C program:
struct iter_limit_bug_ctx { __u64 a; __u64 b; __u64 c; };
static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb(void)
{
switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
case 1: ctx->a = 42; break;
case 2: ctx->b = 42; break;
default: ctx->c = 42; break;
}
}
int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0);
if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1");
return 0;
}The main idea is that each loop iteration changes one of the state variables in a non-deterministic manner. Hence it is premature to prune the states that have two iterations left comparing them to states with one iteration left.
E.g. {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=0} can reach state {42,42,7}, while {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=1} can't.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
--- .../bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_iterating_callbacks.c +70 -0
@@ -239,4 +239,74 @@ int bpf_loop_iter_limit_nested(void *unused)return 1000 * a + b + c; } +struct iter_limit_bug_ctx { +__u64 a; +__u64 b; +__u64 c; +}; + +static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb (void ) +{ +/* This is the same as C code below, but written +* in assembly to control which branches are fall-through. +* +* switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) { +* case 1: ctx->a = 42; break; +* case 2: ctx->b = 42; break; +* default: ctx->c = 42; break; +* } +*/ + asmvolatile ( +"r9 = r2;" +"call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" +"r1 = r0;" +"r2 = 42;" +"r0 = 0;" +"if r1 == 0x1 goto 1f;" +"if r1 == 0x2 goto 2f;" +"*(u64 *)(r9 + 16) = r2;" +"exit;" +"1: *(u64 *)(r9 + 0) = r2;" +"exit;" +"2: *(u64 *)(r9 + 8) = r2;" +"exit;" + : + : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32) + : __clobber_all + ); +} + +SEC("tc") +__failure +__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ) +int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb) +{ + struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 }; + + bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0); + + /* This is the same as C code below, + * written in assembly to guarantee checks order. + * + * if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7) + * asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1"); + */ + asm volatile ( +"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_a];" +"if r1 != 42 goto 1f;" +"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_b];" +"if r1 != 42 goto 1f;" +"r1 = *(u64 *)%[ctx_c];" +"if r1 != 7 goto 1f;" +"r1 /= 0;" +"1:" + : + : [ctx_a]"m"(ctx.a), + [ctx_b]"m"(ctx.b), + [ctx_c]"m"(ctx.c) + : "r1" + ); +return 0 ; +} + char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic
Quoted 31 lines · Eduard Zingerman
The test case was minimized from mailing list discussion [0]. It is equivalent to the following C program:
struct iter_limit_bug_ctx { __u64 a; __u64 b; __u64 c; }; static __naked void iter_limit_bug_cb(void) { switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) { case 1: ctx->a = 42; break; case 2: ctx->b = 42; break; default: ctx->c = 42; break; } } int iter_limit_bug(struct __sk_buff *skb) { struct iter_limit_bug_ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 }; bpf_loop(2, iter_limit_bug_cb, &ctx, 0); if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7) asm volatile("r1 /= 0;":::"r1"); return 0; }The main idea is that each loop iteration changes one of the state variables in a non-deterministic manner. Hence it is premature to prune the states that have two iterations left comparing them to states with one iteration left.
E.g. {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=0} can reach state {42,42,7}, while {{7,7,7}, callback_depth=1} can't.
Quoted 3 lines
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>