On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:15 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 08:31:23PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > > 'linked' is also wrong. The regs are exactly equal.
> > > In case of pkt and other pointers two regs will have the same id
> > > as well, but they will not be equal. Here these two scalars are equal
> > > otherwise doing *reg = *known_reg would be wrong.
> >
> > Ok, I guess it also means that "reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE" checks
> > below are unnecessary as well, because if known_reg->id matches, that
> > means register states are exactly the same.
> > > > > + for (j = 0; j < MAX_BPF_REG; j++) {
> > > > > + reg = &state->regs[j];
> > > > > + if (reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && reg->id == known_reg->id)
>
> Right. The type check is technically unnecessary. It's a safety net in case id
> assignment goes wrong plus it makes it easier to understand the logic.
>
> > > > Even if yes, it probably would be more
> > > > straightforward to call appropriate updates in the respective if
> > > > branches (it's just a single line for each register, so not like it's
> > > > duplicating tons of code).
> > >
> > > You mean inside reg_set_min_max() and inside reg_combine_min_max() ?
> > > That won't work because find_equal_scalars() needs access to the whole
> > > bpf_verifier_state and not just bpf_reg_state.
> >
> > No, I meant something like this, few lines above:
> >
> > if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
> >
> > if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
> > if (...)
> > else if (...)
> > else
> >
> > /* both src/dst regs in both this/other branches could have
> > been updated */
> > find_equal_scalars(this_branch, src_reg);
> > find_equal_scalars(this_branch, dst_reg);
> > find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg])
> > find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg])
> > }
> > } else if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
> > reg_set_min_max(...);
> >
> > /* only dst_reg in both branches could have been updated */
> > find_equal_scalars(this_branch, dst_reg);
> > find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg]);
> > }
> >
> >
> > This keeps find_equal_scalars() for relevant registers very close to
> > places where those registers are updated, instead of jumping back and
> > forth between the complicated if after it, and double-checking under
> > which circumstances dst_reg can be updated, for example.
>
> I see it differently.
> I don't like moving if (reg->id) into find_equal_scalars(). Otherwise it would
> have to be named something like try_find_equal_scalars(). And even with such
> "try_" prefix it's still not clean. It's my general dislike of defensive
> programming. I prefer all functions to be imperative: "do" vs "try_do".
> There are exception from the rule, of course. Like kfree() that accepts NULL.
> That's fine.
> In this case I think if (type == SCALAR && id != 0) should be done by the caller.
There is no need to do (type == SCALAR) check, see pseudo-code above.
In all cases where find_equal_scalars() is called we know already that
register is SCALAR.
As for `if (reg->id)` being moved inside find_equal_scalars(). I
didn't mean it as a defensive measure. It just allows to keep
higher-level logic in check_cond_jmp_op() a bit more linear.
Also, regarding "try_find_equal_scalars". It's not try/attempt to do
this, it's do it, similarly to __update_reg_bounds() you explained
below. It's just known_reg->id == 0 is a guarantee that there are no
other equal registers, so we can skip the work. But of course one can
look at this differently. I just prefer less nested ifs, if it's
possible to avoid them.
But all this is not that important. I suggested, you declined, let's move on.
> Note that's different from __update_reg_bounds().
> There the bounds may or may not change, but the action is performed.
> What you're proposing it to make find_equal_scalars() accept any kind
> of register and do the action only if argument is actual scalar
> and its "id != 0". That's exactly the defensive programming
> that I feel make programmers sloppier.
:) I see a little bit of an irony between this anti-defensive
programming manifesto and "safety net in case id assignment goes
wrong" above.
> Note that's not the same as mark_reg_unknown() doing
> if (WARN_ON(regno >= MAX_BPF_REG)) check. I hope the difference is clear.
