On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:35 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 11:25 +0100, Hao Sun wrote: > [...] > > > I tried to convert the repro to a valid test case in inline asm, but seems > > JSET (if r0 & 0xfffffffe goto pc+3) is currently not supported in clang-17. > > Will try after clang-18 is released. > > > > #30 is expected to be executed, see below where everything after ";" is > > the runtime value: > > ... > > 6: (36) if w8 >= 0x69 goto pc+1 ; w8 = 0xbe, always taken > > ... > > 11: (45) if r0 & 0xfffffffe goto pc+3 ; r0 = 0x616, taken > > ... > > 18: (56) if w8 != 0xf goto pc+3 ; w8 not touched, taken > > ... > > 23: (bf) r5 = r8 ; w5 = 0xbe > > 24: (18) r2 = 0x4 > > 26: (7e) if w8 s>= w0 goto pc+5 ; non-taken > > 27: (4f) r8 |= r8 > > 28: (0f) r8 += r8 > > 29: (d6) if w5 s<= 0x1d goto pc+2 ; non-taken > > 30: (18) r0 = 0x4 ; executed > > > > Since the verifier prunes at #26, #30 is dead and eliminated. So, #30 > > is executed after manually commenting out the dead code rewrite pass. > > > > From my understanding, I think r0 should be marked as precise when > > first backtrack from #29, because r5 range at this point depends on w0 > > as r8 and r5 share the same id at #26. > > Hi Hao, Andrii, > > I converted program in question to a runnable test, here is a link to > the patch adding it and disabling dead code removal: > https://gist.github.com/eddyz87/e888ad70c947f28f94146a47e33cd378 > > Run the test as follows: > ./test_progs -vvv -a verifier_and/pruning_test > > And inspect the retval: > do_prog_test_run:PASS:bpf_prog_test_run 0 nsec > run_subtest:FAIL:647 Unexpected retval: 1353935089 != 4 > > Note that I tried this test with two functions: > - bpf_get_current_cgroup_id, with this function I get retval 2, not 4 :) > - bpf_get_prandom_u32, with this function I get a random retval each time. > > What is the expectation when 'bpf_get_current_cgroup_id' is used? > That it is some known (to us) number, but verifier treats it as unknown scalar? > > Also, I find this portion of the verification log strange: > > ... > 13: (0f) r0 += r0 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=2, > var_off=(0x0; 0x3)) > 14: (2f) r4 *= r4 ; R4_w=scalar() > 15: (18) r3 = 0x1f00000034 ; R3_w=0x1f00000034 > 17: (c4) w4 s>>= 29 ; R4_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=-4,smax32=3, > var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) > 18: (56) if w8 != 0xf goto pc+3 ; R8_w=scalar(smin=0x800000000000000f,smax=0x7fffffff0000000f, > umin=smin32=umin32=15,umax=0xffffffff0000000f, > smax32=umax32=15,var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000)) > 19: (d7) r3 = bswap32 r3 ; R3_w=scalar() > 20: (18) r2 = 0x1c ; R2=28 > 22: (67) r4 <<= 2 ; R4_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0x3fffffffc, > smax32=0x7ffffffc,umax32=0xfffffffc, > var_off=(0x0; 0x3fffffffc)) > 23: (bf) r5 = r8 ; R5_w=scalar(id=1,smin=0x800000000000000f, > smax=0x7fffffff0000000f, > umin=smin32=umin32=15, > umax=0xffffffff0000000f, > smax32=umax32=15, > var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000)) > R8=scalar(id=1,smin=0x800000000000000f, > smax=0x7fffffff0000000f, > umin=smin32=umin32=15, > umax=0xffffffff0000000f, > smax32=umax32=15, > var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000)) > 24: (18) r2 = 0x4 ; R2_w=4 > 26: (7e) if w8 s>= w0 goto pc+5 > mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 26 first_idx 22 subseq_idx -1 > mark_precise: frame0: regs=r5,r8 stack= before 24: (18) r2 = 0x4 > ... ^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Here w8 == 15, w0 in range [0, 2], so the jump is being predicted, > but for some reason R0 is not among the registers that would be marked precise. It is, as a second step. There are two concatenated precision logs: mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 26 first_idx 22 subseq_idx -1 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 24: (18) r2 = 0x4 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 23: (bf) r5 = r8 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 22: (67) r4 <<= 2 The issue is elsewhere, see my last email.
