On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:30 PM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/04, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 4:55 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > #pragma clang loop unroll(full)
> > > > for (int b = 1 << 10; b >= 4; b >>= 1) {
> > > > if (start + b > end) {
> > > > continue;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > // If we do 8 byte reads, we have to handle overflows which is
> > > > slower than 4 byte reads.
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < b; i += 4) {
> > > > csum += *(uint32_t *)(start + i);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > start += b;
> > > > }
> > > > if (start + 2 <= end) {
> > > > csum += *(uint16_t *)(start);
> > > > start += 2;
> > > > }
> > > > if (start + 1 <= end) {
> > > > csum += *(start);
> > > > }
> >
> > > Thanks for flagging!
> > > Could you craft a test case that we can use a repro and future
> > > test case?
> >
> > > > fp-88=map_value fp-96=mmmmmmmm fp-104=map_value fp-112=inv fp-120=fp
> > > ...
> > > > I've bisected the problem to commit 3e8ce29850f1 ("bpf: Prevent
> > > > pointer mismatch in bpf_timer_init.") The commit seems unrelated to
> > > > loop processing though (it does touch the verifier however). Either I
> > > > got the bisection wrong or there is something subtle going on.
> >
> > > I stared at that commit and the example asm.
> > > I suspect the bisect went wrong.
> >
> > > Could you try reverting a single
> > > commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill")
> > > ?
> > > The above fp-112=inv means that the verifier is tracking scalar spill.
> > > That could be the reason for bounded loop logic seeing different
> > > stack state on every iteration.
> > > But the asm snippet doesn't have the store to stack at [fp-112]
> > > location, so it could be a red herring.
> >
> > > Are you using the same llvm during bisect?
> > > The commit 354e8f1970f8 should be harmless
> > > (when commit f30d4968e9ae ("bpf: Do not reject when the stack read
> > > size is different from the tracked scalar size"))
> > > is also applied. That fix is in bpf tree only, so far.
> > > The tracking of 8-byte spill is the most useful with the latest llvm
> > > that was taught to use 8-byte aligned stack for such spills.
> >
> > > Without being able to repro it's hard to investigate much further.
> >
> > Not to derail the conversation, but we do actually see a problem
> > with commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and
> > refill"). Program that passed without it now gets:
> >
> > R0=inv(id=0) R1_w=invP0 R2_w=invP0 R5_w=inv0 R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
> > R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=9616,imm=0) R8=inv(id=0)
> > R9_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=9616,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm????
> > fp-16=mmmmmmmm fp-24=00000000 fp-32=inv fp-40=00000000 fp-48=inv
> > fp-56=mmmmmmmm fp-64=mmmmmmmm
> > 479: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -32)
> > corrupted spill memory
> > processed 970 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 2 total_states 73
> > peak_states 73 mark_read 24
>
> Stan,
> please read the 2nd part of my sentence above and try again with that patch.
Ah, sorry, I've missed that part. It does indeed fix it for me, thank you!
