On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:25:26PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:28 PM Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:02:00AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 1:14 AM Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 06:38:56AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:01 AM Hao Sun <sunhao.th@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, we don't check if the branch-taken of a jump is reserved code of
> > > > > > ld_imm64. Instead, such a issue is captured in check_ld_imm(). The verifier
> > > > > > gives the following log in such case:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > func#0 @0
> > > > > > 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
> > > > > > 0: (18) r4 = 0xffff888103436000 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=128,imm=0)
> > > > > > 2: (18) r1 = 0x1d ; R1_w=29
> > > > > > 4: (55) if r4 != 0x0 goto pc+4 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=128,imm=0)
> > > > > > 5: (1c) w1 -= w1 ; R1_w=0
> > > > > > 6: (18) r5 = 0x32 ; R5_w=50
> > > > > > 8: (56) if w5 != 0xfffffff4 goto pc-2
> > > > > > mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 8 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
> > > > > > mark_precise: frame0: regs=r5 stack= before 6: (18) r5 = 0x32
> > > > > > 7: R5_w=50
> > > > > > 7: BUG_ld_00
> > > > > > invalid BPF_LD_IMM insn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here the verifier rejects the program because it thinks insn at 7 is an
> > > > > > invalid BPF_LD_IMM, but such a error log is not accurate since the issue
> > > > > > is jumping to reserved code not because the program contains invalid insn.
> > > > > > Therefore, make the verifier check the jump target during check_cfg(). For
> > > > > > the same program, the verifier reports the following log:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > func#0 @0
> > > > > > jump to reserved code from insn 8 to 7
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > index eed7350e15f4..725ac0b464cf 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > @@ -14980,6 +14980,7 @@ static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > int *insn_stack = env->cfg.insn_stack;
> > > > > > int *insn_state = env->cfg.insn_state;
> > > > > > + struct bpf_insn *insns = env->prog->insnsi;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (e == FALLTHROUGH && insn_state[t] >= (DISCOVERED | FALLTHROUGH))
> > > > > > return DONE_EXPLORING;
> > > > > > @@ -14993,6 +14994,12 @@ static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + if (e == BRANCH && insns[w].code == 0) {
> > > > > > + verbose_linfo(env, t, "%d", t);
> > > > > > + verbose(env, "jump to reserved code from insn %d to %d\n", t, w);
> > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think we should be changing the verifier to make
> > > > > fuzzer logs more readable.
> > > >
> > > > Taking fuzzer out of consideration, giving users clearer explanation for
> > > > such verifier rejection could save a lot of head scratching.
> > >
> > > Users won't see such errors unless they are actively doing what
> > > is not recommended.
> > >
> > > > Compiler shouldn't generate such program, but its plausible to forget to
> > > > account that BPF_LD_IMM64 consists of two instructions when writing
> > > > assembly (especially with filter.h-like macros) and have it jump to the 2nd
> > > > part of BPF_LD_IMM64.
> > >
> > > Using macros to write bpf asm code is highly discouraged.
> > > All kinds of errors are possible.
> > > Bogus jump is just one of such mistakes.
> > > Use naked functions and inline asm in C code that
> > > both GCC and clang understand then you won't see bad jumps.
> > > See selftets/bpf/verifier_*.c as an example.
> >
> > Understood, thanks for the explanation!
> >
> > Found them under progs/verifier_*.c inside the bpf selftest directory.
> >
> > > > > Same with patch 2. The code is fine as-is.
> > > >
> > > > The only way BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW conditional in check_ld_imm()
> > > > can be met right now is when we have a jump to the 2nd part of LD_IMM64; but
> > > > what this conditional actually guard against is not straight-forward and
> > > > quite confusing[1].
> > >
> > > There are plenty of cases in the verifier where we print
> > > an error message. Some of them should be impossible due
> > > to prior checks. In such cases we don't yell "verifier bug"
> > > and are not going to do that in this case either.
> >
> > I agree, without patch 1 applied, the change to "verfier bug" in patch 2
> > doesn't make sense and is just wrong. The point I'm trying to make is that
> > the checks done by verifier are generally clear, you can make sense of why
> > certain check are in place just by looking at the code, but
> > BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW is _not_ one of them.
> >
> > I got confused, (reading between the lines I believe) this had Hao puzzled,
> > and even Yongsong had to look twice[1] back then; so this check is certainly
> > not on-par with others we have in the verifier in terms of clarity, which
> > leads to patches here as well as mine a while back.
> >
> > Perhaps we could reconsider making it more obvious how verifier prevents
> > jump to reserved code/2nd instruction of LD_IMM64?
>
> I agree that the message is confusing.
> My point is that people see it only when they code in asm with macros.
> Anyone who was doing that a lot saw that message and probably debugged
> much worse issues while inserting an asm macro and forgetting to
> adjust constants in branches. The code might even load, but will
> execute something totally different.
> asm macros are a nightmare to debug. Adding more code to the verifier
> to help with one particular case is not going to help much.
> Use inline asm in C is the right answer for folks that still need asm.
>
> UX of the verifier sucks and we need to improve. So please focus on impactful
> improvements instead of hacking on niche cases.
Ok, can't say I agree entirely, but it's a niche case alright, and I'll
leave this alone.
