On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 5:22 PM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 2:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:47 AM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:55 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 7:41 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > For bpf_dynptr_slice_rdrw we can mark buffer[] in stack as
> > > > > > > poisoned with dynptr_id == R0's PTR_TO_MEM dynptr_id.
> > > > > > > Then as soon as first spillable reg touches that poisoned stack area
> > > > > > > we can invalidate all PTR_TO_MEM's with that dynptr_id.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, this makes sense to me. are you already currently working or
> > > > > > planning to work on a fix for this Kumar, or should i take a stab at
> > > > > > it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not planning to do so, so go ahead. One more thing I noticed just now is
> > > > > that we probably need to update regsafe to perform a check_ids comparison for
> > > > > dynptr_id for dynptr PTR_TO_MEMs? It was not a problem back when f8064ab90d66
> > > > > ("bpf: Invalidate slices on destruction of dynptrs on stack") was added but
> > > > > 567da5d253cd ("bpf: improve regsafe() checks for PTR_TO_{MEM,BUF,TP_BUFFER}")
> > > > > added PTR_TO_MEM in the switch statement.
> > > >
> > > > I can take care of this. But I really would like to avoid these
> > > > special cases of extra dynptr_id, exactly for reasons like this
> > > > omitted check.
> > > >
> > > > What do people think about generalizing current ref_obj_id to be more
> > > > like "lifetime id" (to borrow Rust terminology a bit), which would be
> > > > an object (which might or might not be a tracked reference) defining
> > > > the scope/lifetime of the current register (whatever it represents).
> > > >
> > > > I haven't looked through code much, but I've been treating ref_obj_id
> > > > as that already in my thinking before, and it seems to be a better
> > > > approach than having a special-case of dynptr_id.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking care of this (and apologies for the late reply). i
> > > think the dynptr_id field would still be needed in this case to
> > > associate a slice with a dynptr, so that when a dynptr is invalidated
> > > its slices get invalidated as well. I'm not sure we could get away
> > > with just having ref_obj_id symbolize that in the case where the
> > > underlying object is a tracked reference, because for example, it
> > > seems like a dynptr would need both a unique reference id to the
> > > object (so that if for example there are two dynptrs pointing to the
> > > same object, they will both be assignedthe same reference id so the
> > > object can't for example be freed twice) and also its own dynptr id so
> > > that its slices get invalidated if the dynptr is invalidated
> >
> > Can you elaborate on specific example? Because let's say dynptr is
> > created from some refcounted object. Then that dynptr's id field will
> > be a unique "dynptr id", dynptr's ref_obj_id will point to that
> > refcounted object from which we derived dynptr itself. And then when
> > we create slices from dynptrs, then each slice gets its own unique id,
> > but records dynptr's id as slice's ref_obj_id. So we end up with this
> > hierarchy of id + ref_obj_id forming a tree.
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > I want to take a look at simplifying this at some point, so I'll know
> > more details once I start digging into code. Right now I still fail to
> > see why we need a third ID for dynptr.
>
> My mental model is that
> * dynptr's ref_obj_id is set whenver there's a refcounted object
> (right now, only ringbuf dynptrs are refcounted), to enforce that the
> reference gets released by the time the program exits (dynptr
> ref_obj_id is set in mark_stack_slots_dynptr())
> * dynptr's dynptr id is set for all dynptrs, so that if a dynptr gets
> overwritten/invalidated, all slices for that dynptr get invalidated
> (dynptr id is set in mark_dynptr_stack_regs(), called in
> mark_stack_slots_dynptr())
yeah, I understand that's how it works today and what the semantics of
ref_obj_id is. But I'm saying that we should look at whether we can
revise ref_obj_id semantics and generalize it to be "ID of the
<object> whose lifetime we are bound to". This refcount part could be
optional (again, will know for sure when I get to writing the code).
I'll get to this in time and will validate my own preconceptions. I
don't think we should spend too much time discussing this in abstract
right now.
> * when there's a data slice, both the slice's dynptr id and ref_obj_id
> get set to the dynptr's dynptr id and ref_obj_id, so that the slice
> gets invalidated when either the dynptr is released or when the dynptr
> is overwritten (two separate cases) (the slice's dynptr id and ref obj
> id get set in check_helper_call()). The data slice also has its own
> unique id, but this is to handle the case where the data slice may be
> null.
>
> "And then when we create slices from dynptrs, then each slice gets its
> own unique id, but records dynptr's id as slice's ref_obj_id. So we
> end up with this hierarchy of id + ref_obj_id forming a tree." I don't
> think I'm following the tree part. I think it records the dynptr's id
> as slice's id (and dynptr's ref obj id as slice's ref obj id) in
> check_helper_call().
>
> "Right now I still fail to see why we need a third ID for dynptr". I
> think for dynptrs, there are two IDs:
> state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.ref_obj_id and
> state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.id (where ref_obj_id is used to
> invalidate slices when dynptr is released and id is used to
> invalidates slices when dynptr is overwritten), and then for dynptr
> slices there are 3 IDs: reg->id, reg->dynptr_id, reg->ref_obj_id
> (where id is used for the data slice returning NULL case, and
> ref_obj_id / dynptr_id are used when dynptrs are invalidated).
