On Wed, 2025-01-29 at 10:45 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:49:12AM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2025-01-14 at 13:28 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > > This commit allows progs to elide a null check on statically
> > > > known
> > > > map
> > > > lookup keys. In other words, if the verifier can statically
> > > > prove
> > > > that
> > > > the lookup will be in-bounds, allow the prog to drop the null
> > > > check.
> > > >
> > > > This is useful for two reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Large numbers of nullness checks (especially when they
> > > > cannot
> > > > fail)
> > > > unnecessarily pushes prog towards
> > > > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_JMP_SEQ.
> > > > 2. It forms a tighter contract between programmer and verifier.
> > > >
> > > > For (1), bpftrace is starting to make heavier use of percpu
> > > > scratch
> > > > maps. As a result, for user scripts with large number of
> > > > unrolled
> > > > loops,
> > > > we are starting to hit jump complexity verification errors.
> > > > These
> > > > percpu lookups cannot fail anyways, as we only use static key
> > > > values.
> > > > Eliding nullness probably results in less work for verifier as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > For (2), percpu scratch maps are often used as a larger stack,
> > > > as the
> > > > currrent stack is limited to 512 bytes. In these situations, it
> > > > is
> > > > desirable for the programmer to express: "this lookup should
> > > > never
> > > > fail,
> > > > and if it does, it means I messed up the code". By omitting the
> > > > null
> > > > check, the programmer can "ask" the verifier to double check
> > > > the
> > > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > Tests also have to be updated in sync with these changes, as
> > > > the
> > > > verifier is more efficient with this change. Notable, iters.c
> > > > tests
> > > > had
> > > > to be changed to use a map type that still requires null
> > > > checks, as
> > > > it's
> > > > exercising verifier tracking logic w.r.t iterators.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 92
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 14 +--
> > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c | 2 +-
> > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_in_map.c | 2 +-
> > > > .../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c | 2 +-
> > > > 5 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > @@ -9158,6 +9216,7 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct
> > > > bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> > > > enum bpf_arg_type arg_type = fn->arg_type[arg];
> > > > enum bpf_reg_type type = reg->type;
> > > > u32 *arg_btf_id = NULL;
> > > > + u32 key_size;
> > > > int err = 0;
> > > >
> > > > if (arg_type == ARG_DONTCARE)
> > > > @@ -9291,8 +9350,13 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct
> > > > bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> > > > verbose(env, "invalid map_ptr to
> > > > access map-
> > > > > key\n");
> > > > return -EACCES;
> > > > }
> > > > - err = check_helper_mem_access(env, regno,
> > > > meta-
> > > > > map_ptr->key_size,
> > > > - BPF_READ, false,
> > > > NULL);
> > > > + key_size = meta->map_ptr->key_size;
> > > > + err = check_helper_mem_access(env, regno,
> > > > key_size,
> > > > BPF_READ, false, NULL);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > + meta->const_map_key =
> > > > get_constant_map_key(env, reg,
> > > > key_size);
> > > > + if (meta->const_map_key < 0 && meta-
> > > > >const_map_key
> > > > != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > + return meta->const_map_key;
> > >
> > > Mark Hartmayer reported a problem that after this commit the
> > > verifier
> > > started refusing to load libvirt's virCgroupV2DevicesLoadProg(),
> > > which
> > > contains the following snippet:
> > >
> > > 53: (b7) r1 = -1 ; R1_w=-1
> > > 54: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1 ; R1_w=-1 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=-1
> > > 55: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0
> > > 56: (07) r2 += -8 ; R2_w=fp-8
> > > 57: (18) r1 = 0x9553c800 ; R1_w=map_ptr(ks=8,vs=4)
> > > 59: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
> > >
> > > IIUC here the actual constant value is -1, which this code
> > > confuses
> > > with an error.
> >
> > Thanks for reporting. I think I know what the issue is - will send
> > a
> > patch shortly.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
>
> I cribbed the source from [0] and tested before and after. I think
> this
> should work. Mind giving it a try?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 9971c03adfd5..e9176a5ce215 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -9206,6 +9206,8 @@ static s64 get_constant_map_key(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env,
> return reg->var_off.value;
> }
>
> +static bool can_elide_value_nullness(enum bpf_map_type type);
> +
> static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> struct bpf_call_arg_meta *meta,
> const struct bpf_func_proto *fn,
> @@ -9354,9 +9356,11 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 arg,
> err = check_helper_mem_access(env, regno, key_size,
> BPF_READ, false, NULL);
> if (err)
> return err;
> - meta->const_map_key = get_constant_map_key(env, reg,
> key_size);
> - if (meta->const_map_key < 0 && meta->const_map_key !=
> -EOPNOTSUPP)
> - return meta->const_map_key;
> + if (can_elide_value_nullness(meta->map_ptr-
> >map_type)) {
> + meta->const_map_key =
> get_constant_map_key(env, reg, key_size);
> + if (meta->const_map_key < 0 && meta-
> >const_map_key != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + return meta->const_map_key;
> + }
> break;
> case ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
> if (type_may_be_null(arg_type) &&
> register_is_null(reg))
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
>
> [0]:
> https://github.com/libvirt/libvirt/blob/c1166be3475a0269f5164d87fec6227d6cb34b47/src/util/vircgroupv2devices.c#L66-L135
Thanks, I tried this in isolation and it fixed the issue for me.
I talked to Mark and he will try it with his libvirt scenario.
The code looks reasonable to me, but I have a small concern regarding
what will happen if the BPF code uses a -EOPNOTSUPP immediate with an
array. Unlike other immediates, IIUC this will cause check_func_arg()
to return 0. Is there a reason to have this special?
