On 1/2/24 2:22 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:42 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:07 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With patch set [1], precision backtracing supports register spill/fill
to/from the stack. The patch [2] allows initial imprecise register spill
with content 0. This is a common case for cpuv3 and lower for
initializing the stack variables with pattern
r1 = 0
*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1
and the [2] has demonstrated good verification improvement.
For cpuv4, the initialization could be
*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0
The current verifier marks the r10-8 contents with STACK_ZERO.
Similar to [2], let us permit the above insn to behave like
imprecise register spill which can reduce number of verified states.
I checked cpuv3 and cpuv4 with and without this patch.
There is no change for cpuv3 since '*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0'
is only generated with cpuv4.
For cpuv4:
$ ../veristat -C old.cpuv4.csv new.cpuv4.csv -e file,prog,insns,states -s '|insns_diff|'
File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------------- ---------- ---------- -------------
pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked3.o on_event 6066 4889 -1177 (-19.40%) 403 321 -82 (-20.35%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_tc 12412 11719 -693 (-5.58%) 345 330 -15 (-4.35%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_xdp 12478 11794 -684 (-5.48%) 346 331 -15 (-4.34%)
test_cls_redirect.bpf.linked3.o cls_redirect 35483 35387 -96 (-0.27%) 2179 2177 -2 (-0.09%)
local_storage_bench.bpf.linked3.o get_local 228 168 -60 (-26.32%) 17 14 -3 (-17.65%)
test_l4lb_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 4494 4522 +28 (+0.62%) 217 219 +2 (+0.92%)
test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 1432 1455 +23 (+1.61%) 92 94 +2 (+2.17%)
verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.linked3.o widening 52 41 -11 (-21.15%) 4 3 -1 (-25.00%)
test_xdp_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress_v6 3462 3458 -4 (-0.12%) 216 216 +0 (+0.00%)
...
test_l4lb_noinline and test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr has minor regression, but
pyperf600_bpf_loop and local_storage_bench gets pretty good improvement.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-1-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-9-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index a376eb609c41..17ad0228270e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4491,7 +4491,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (fls64(reg->umax_value) > BITS_PER_BYTE * size)
state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.id = 0;
} else if (!reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) &&
- insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) {
+ env->bpf_capable) {
the change makes sense, there is nothing special about insn->imm == 0
case, so LGTM
struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {};
__mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, insn->imm);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
index 39fe3372e0e0..05de3de56e79 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c
@@ -496,13 +496,13 @@ SEC("raw_tp")
__log_level(2)
__success
/* make sure fp-8 is all STACK_ZERO */
but we should update STACK_ZERO comments in this test
and also, STACK_ZERO situation is still possible, right? E.g., when we
spill register at -4 offset, not -8. So I'd either extend or add
another test to make sure we still validate that STACK_ZERO slots
return precise zero. Can you add something like this?
-__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000")
+__msg("2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
/* but fp-16 is spilled IMPRECISE zero const reg */
__msg("4: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0 ; R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-16_w=0")
/* validate that assigning R2 from STACK_ZERO doesn't mark register
* precise immediately; if necessary, it will be marked precise later
*/
-__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=00000000")
+__msg("6: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r10 -1) ; R2_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=0")
/* similarly, when R2 is assigned from spilled register, it is initially
* imprecise, but will be marked precise later once it is used in precise context
*/
And seems like test_verifier test is failing now ([0]):
#114/p BPF_ST_MEM stack imm zero, variable offset FAIL
Failed to load prog 'Invalid argument'!
At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=255 should have been in [0, 1]
verification time 19 usec
stack depth 32
processed 11 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0
total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0
[0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7389645653/job/20103046755
Ack. The CI also sent an email to me about this. Will investigate.
--
2.34.1
