On 9/8/22 5:40 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:37 PM Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/6/22 9:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On 9/6/22 4:42 PM, Dave Marchevsky wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/22 5:01 PM, Joanne Koong wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:03 AM Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verifier logic to confirm that a callback function returns 0 or 1 was
>>>>>> added in commit 69c087ba6225b ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper").
>>>>>> At the time, callback return value was only used to continue or stop
>>>>>> iteration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to support callbacks with a broader return value range, such as
>>>>>> those added further in this series, add a callback_ret_range to
>>>>>> bpf_func_state. Verifier's helpers which set in_callback_fn will also
>>>>>> set the new field, which the verifier will later use to check return
>>>>>> value bounds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Default to tnum_range(0, 1) instead of using tnum_unknown as a sentinel
>>>>>> value as the latter would prevent the valid range (0, U64_MAX) being
>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
>>>>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>>>>> index 2e3bad8640dc..9c017575c034 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>>>>>> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ struct bpf_func_state {
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> u32 async_entry_cnt;
>>>>>> bool in_callback_fn;
>>>>>> + struct tnum callback_ret_range;
>>>>>> bool in_async_callback_fn;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* The following fields should be last. See copy_func_state() */
>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>> index 9bef8b41e737..68bfa7c28048 100644
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>>>>> @@ -1745,6 +1745,7 @@ static void init_func_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>>>> state->callsite = callsite;
>>>>>> state->frameno = frameno;
>>>>>> state->subprogno = subprogno;
>>>>>> + state->callback_ret_range = tnum_range(0, 1);
>>>>>> init_reg_state(env, state);
>>>>>> mark_verifier_state_scratched(env);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -6879,6 +6880,7 @@ static int set_find_vma_callback_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>>>> __mark_reg_not_init(env, &callee->regs[BPF_REG_4]);
>>>>>> __mark_reg_not_init(env, &callee->regs[BPF_REG_5]);
>>>>>> callee->in_callback_fn = true;
>>>>>> + callee->callback_ret_range = tnum_range(0, 1);
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for removing this restriction for callback functions!
>>>>>
>>>>> One quick question: is this line above needed? I think in
>>>>> __check_func_call, we always call init_func_state() first before
>>>>> calling set_find_vma_callback_state(), so after the init_func_state()
>>>>> call, the callee->callback_ret_range will already be set to
>>>>> tnum_range(0,1).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're right, it's not strictly necessary. I think that the default range being
>>>> tnum_range(0, 1) - although necessary for backwards compat - is unintuitive. So
>>>> decided to be explicit with existing callbacks so folks didn't have to go
>>>> searching for the default to understand what the ret_range is, and it's more
>>>> obvious that callback_ret_range should be changed if existing helper code is
>>>> reused.
>>>
>>> Maybe then it's better to keep callback_ret_range as range(0,0)
>>> in init_func_state() to nudge/force other places to set it explicitly ?
>>
>> tnum_range(0, 0) sounds good to me.
>>
>> Would you like me to send this separately with that change, so it can be applied
>> independently of rest of these changes?
>
> Whichever way is faster.
> We can always apply a patch or a few patches out of a bigger set.
Updated + rebased and sent as https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220908230716.2751723-1-davemarchevsky@xxxxxx/
