On 4/18/18 9:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:54:39AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
When helpers like bpf_get_stack returns an int value
and later on used for arithmetic computation, the LSH and ARSH
operations are often required to get proper sign extension into
64-bit. For example, without this patch:
     54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
     54: (bf) r8 = r0
     55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
     55: (67) r8 <<= 32
     56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
     56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
     57: R8=inv(id=0)
With this patch:
     54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
     54: (bf) r8 = r0
     55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
     55: (67) r8 <<= 32
     56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
     56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
     57: R8=inv(id=0, umax_value=800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff))
With better range of "R8", later on when "R8" is added to other register,
e.g., a map pointer or scalar-value register, the better register
range can be derived and verifier failure may be avoided.

In our later example,
     ......
     usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
     if (usize < 0)
         return 0;
     ksize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data + usize, max_len - usize, 0);
     ......
Without improving ARSH value range tracking, the register representing
"max_len - usize" will have smin_value equal to S64_MIN and will be
rejected by verifier.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com>
---
  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index a8302c3..6148d31 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2944,6 +2944,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct 
bpf_verifier_env *env,
                __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
                break;
        case BPF_RSH:
+       case BPF_ARSH:

I don't think that's correct.
The code further down is very RSH specific.

Okay, I may need to introduce tnum_arshift then.


                if (umax_val >= insn_bitness) {
                        /* Shifts greater than 31 or 63 are undefined.
                         * This includes shifts by a negative number.
--
2.9.5

Reply via email to