On Wed, Sep 06 2023, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:57 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 01 2023, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>>
>> > The problem here is that reg->subreg_def should be set as DEF_NOT_SUBREG for
>> > registers that are used as destination registers of BPF_LDX |
>> > BPF_MEMSX. I am seeing
>> > the same problem on ARM32 and was going to send a patch today.
>> >
>> > The problem is that is_reg64() returns false for destination registers
>> > of BPF_LDX | BPF_MEMSX.
>> > But BPF_LDX | BPF_MEMSX always loads a 64 bit value because of the
>> > sign extension so
>> > is_reg64() should return true.
>> >
>> > I have written a patch that I will be sending as a reply to this.
>> > Please let me know if that makes sense.
>> >
>>
>> The check_reg_arg() function will mark reg->subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG for destination
>> registers if is_reg64() returns true for these registers. My patch below make is_reg64()
>> return true for destination registers of BPF_LDX with mod = BPF_MEMSX. I feel this is the
>> correct way to fix this problem.
>>
>> Here is my patch:
>>
>> --- 8< ---
>> From cf1bf5282183cf721926ab14d968d3d4097b89b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 11:18:59 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf: verifier: mark destination of sign-extended load as
>> 64 bit
>>
>> The verifier can emit instructions to zero-extend destination registers
>> when the register is being used to keep 32 bit values. This behaviour is
>> enabled only when the JIT sets bpf_jit_needs_zext() -> true. In the case
>> of a sign extended load instruction, the destination register always has a
>> 64-bit value, therefore the verifier should not emit zero-extend
>> instructions for it.
>>
>> Change is_reg64() to return true if the register under consideration is a
>> destination register of LDX instruction with mode = BPF_MEMSX.
>>
>> Fixes: 1f9a1ea821ff ("bpf: Support new sign-extension load insns")
>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index bb78212fa5b2..93f84b868ccc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -3029,7 +3029,7 @@ static bool is_reg64(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>>
>> if (class == BPF_LDX) {
>> if (t != SRC_OP)
>> - return BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW;
>> + return (BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW || BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_MEMSX);
>
> Looks like we have a bug here for normal LDX too.
> This 'if' condition was inserting unnecessary zext for LDX.
> It was harmless for LDX and broken for LDSX.
> Both LDX and LDSX write all bits of 64-bit register.
>
> I think the proper fix is to remove above two lines.
> wdyt?
For LDX this returns true only if it is with a BPF_DW, for others it returns false.
This means a zext is inserted for BPF_LDX | BPF_B/H/W.
This is not a bug because LDX writes 64 bits of the register only with BPF_DW.
With BPF_B/H/W It only writes the lower 32bits and needs zext for upper 32 bits.
On 32 bit architectures where a 64-bit BPF register is simulated with two 32-bit registers,
explicit zext is required for BPF_LDX | BPF_B/H/W.
So, we should not remove this.
Thanks,
Puranjay
