Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] bpf: Explicitly zero-extend R0 after 32-bit cmpxchg
From: Martin KaFai Lau <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-24 05:49:06
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 03:08:45PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: [ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 0ae015ad1e05..dcf18612841b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c@@ -2342,6 +2342,10 @@ bool __weak bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data(void *func) /* Return TRUE if the JIT backend wants verifier to enable sub-register usage * analysis code and wants explicit zero extension inserted by verifier. * Otherwise, return FALSE. + * + * The verifier inserts an explicit zero extension after BPF_CMPXCHGs even if + * you don't override this. JITs that don't want these extra insns can detect + * them using insn_is_zext. */ bool __weak bpf_jit_needs_zext(void) {diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 3d34ba492d46..ec1cbd565140 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c@@ -11061,8 +11061,16 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, */ if (WARN_ON(!(insn.imm & BPF_FETCH))) return -EINVAL; - load_reg = insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG ? BPF_REG_0 - : insn.src_reg; + /* There should already be a zero-extension inserted after BPF_CMPXCHG. */ + if (insn.imm == BPF_CMPXCHG) { + struct bpf_insn *next = &insns[adj_idx + 1]; + + if (WARN_ON(!insn_is_zext(next) || next->dst_reg != insn.src_reg)) + return -EINVAL; + continue;
This is to avoid zext_patch again for the JITs with bpf_jit_needs_zext() == true. IIUC, at this point, aux[adj_idx].zext_dst == true which means that the check_atomic() has already marked the reg0->subreg_def properly.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ } + + load_reg = insn.src_reg; } else { load_reg = insn.dst_reg; }@@ -11666,6 +11674,27 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) continue; } + /* BPF_CMPXCHG always loads a value into R0, therefore always + * zero-extends. However some archs' equivalent instruction only + * does this load when the comparison is successful. So here we + * add a BPF_ZEXT_REG after every 32-bit CMPXCHG, so that such + * archs' JITs don't need to deal with the issue. Archs that + * don't face this issue may use insn_is_zext to detect and skip + * the added instruction. + */ + if (insn->code == (BPF_STX | BPF_W | BPF_ATOMIC) && insn->imm == BPF_CMPXCHG) { + struct bpf_insn zext_patch[2] = { *insn, BPF_ZEXT_REG(BPF_REG_0) };
Then should this zext_patch only be done for "!bpf_jit_needs_zext()" such that the above change in opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() becomes unnecessary?
+ + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, zext_patch, 2); + if (!new_prog) + return -ENOMEM; + + delta += 1; + env->prog = prog = new_prog; + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta; + continue; + } + if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) continue; if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)