From: zhongjun <zhongjun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> There are too many so-called 'misconfigured' errors potentially feed back to user-space, that make it very hard to judge on a glance the reason a verification failure occurred. This patch make those similar error outputs more sensitive and readible. Signed-off-by: Jun Zhong <zhongjun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> base-commit: 738a96c4a8c36950803fdd27e7c30aca92dccefd --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 24 +++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index d517d13878cf..f19534f919c2 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -12684,7 +12684,8 @@ static int check_ld_imm(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) dst_reg->btf_id = aux->btf_var.btf_id; break; default: - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: dst_reg->type = %d\n", + dst_reg->type); return -EFAULT; } return 0; @@ -12722,7 +12723,8 @@ static int check_ld_imm(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX) { dst_reg->type = CONST_PTR_TO_MAP; } else { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: insn->src_reg = %d\n", + (int)insn->src_reg); return -EINVAL; } @@ -12769,7 +12771,7 @@ static int check_ld_abs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) } if (!env->ops->gen_ld_abs) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: gen_ld_abs is NULL\n"); return -EINVAL; } @@ -15814,13 +15816,14 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (ops->gen_prologue || env->seen_direct_write) { if (!ops->gen_prologue) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: gen_prologue is NULL\n"); return -EINVAL; } cnt = ops->gen_prologue(insn_buf, env->seen_direct_write, env->prog); if (cnt >= ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: cnt=%d exceeds limit@%lu\n", + cnt, ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)); return -EINVAL; } else if (cnt) { new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, 0, insn_buf, cnt); @@ -15951,7 +15954,8 @@ static int convert_ctx_accesses(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) &target_size); if (cnt == 0 || cnt >= ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf) || (ctx_field_size && !target_size)) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: ins[%d] cnt=%d ctx_s=%u tg_s=%u\n", + i, cnt, ctx_field_size, target_size); return -EINVAL; } @@ -16400,7 +16404,8 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_IND)) { cnt = env->ops->gen_ld_abs(insn, insn_buf); if (cnt == 0 || cnt >= ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: cnt=%d exceeds limit@%lu\n", + cnt, ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)); return -EINVAL; } @@ -16647,7 +16652,8 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (cnt == -EOPNOTSUPP) goto patch_map_ops_generic; if (cnt <= 0 || cnt >= ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: cnt=%d exceeds limit@%lu\n", + cnt, ARRAY_SIZE(insn_buf)); return -EINVAL; } @@ -16848,7 +16854,7 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (!map_ptr->ops->map_poke_track || !map_ptr->ops->map_poke_untrack || !map_ptr->ops->map_poke_run) { - verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured\n"); + verbose(env, "bpf verifier is misconfigured: map_poke_xxx is NULL\n"); return -EINVAL; } -- 2.20.1