Thread (18 messages) 18 messages, 5 authors, 2024-07-24

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] bpf, verifier: improve signed ranges inference for BPF_AND

From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-07-22 07:13:26
Also in: bpf, linux-security-module

On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 19:00 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
From: Shung-Hsi Yu <redacted>
[...]
                        |                         src_reg
       smin' = ?        +----------------------------+---------------------------
  smin'(r) <= smin(r)   |        negative            |       non-negative
---------+--------------+----------------------------+---------------------------
         |   negative   |negative_bit_floor(         |negative_bit_floor(
         |              |  min(dst->smin, src->smin))|  min(dst->smin, src->smin))
dst_reg  +--------------+----------------------------+---------------------------
         | non-negative |negative_bit_floor(         |negative_bit_floor(
         |              |  min(dst->smin, src->smin))|  min(dst->smin, src->smin))

Meaning that simply using

    negative_bit_floor(min(dst_reg->smin_value, src_reg->smin_value))

to calculate the resulting smin_value would work across all sign combinations.

Together these allows the BPF verifier to infer the signed range of the
result of BPF_AND operation using the signed range from its operands,
and use that information

    r0 s>>= 63; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
    r0 &= -13 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-16,smax=smax32=0,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffff3))

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e62e2971301ca7f2e9eb74fc500c520285cad8f5.camel@gmail.com/ (local)

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/phcqmyzeqrsfzy7sb4rwpluc37hxyz7rcajk2bqw6cjk2x7rt5@m2hl6enudv7d/ (local)
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <redacted>
Acked-by: Xu Kuohai <redacted>
---
I find derivation of these new rules logical.
Also tried a simple brute force testing of this algorithm for 6-bit
signed integers, and have not found any constraint violations:
https://github.com/eddyz87/bpf-and-brute-force-check

As a nitpick, I think that it would be good to have some shortened
version of the derivation in the comments alongside the code.
(Maybe with a link to the mailing list).

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

[...]
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help