bpf: enhance BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE is_branch_taken logic
Use 32-bit subranges to prune some 64-bit BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE conditions that otherwise would be "inconclusive" (i.e., is_branch_taken() would return -1). This can happen, for example, when registers are initialized as 64-bit u64/s64, then compared for inequality as 32-bit subregisters, and then followed by 64-bit equality/inequality check. That 32-bit inequality can establish some pattern for lower 32 bits of a register (e.g., s< 0 condition determines whether the bit #31 is zero or not), while overall 64-bit value could be anything (according to a value range representation). This is not a fancy quirky special case, but actually a handling that's necessary to prevent correctness issue with BPF verifier's range tracking: set_range_min_max() assumes that register ranges are non-overlapping, and if that condition is not guaranteed by is_branch_taken() we can end up with invalid ranges, where min > max. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsY2q1_fUohD7hRmKGqv1MV=eP2f6XK8kjkYNw7BaiF8iQ@mail.gmail.com/ Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231112010609.848406-4-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
96381879a3
commit
be41a203bb
@ -14283,6 +14283,18 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
if (smin1 > smax2 || smax1 < smin2)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
if (!is_jmp32) {
|
||||
/* if 64-bit ranges are inconclusive, see if we can
|
||||
* utilize 32-bit subrange knowledge to eliminate
|
||||
* branches that can't be taken a priori
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (reg1->u32_min_value > reg2->u32_max_value ||
|
||||
reg1->u32_max_value < reg2->u32_min_value)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
if (reg1->s32_min_value > reg2->s32_max_value ||
|
||||
reg1->s32_max_value < reg2->s32_min_value)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case BPF_JNE:
|
||||
/* constants, umin/umax and smin/smax checks would be
|
||||
@ -14295,6 +14307,18 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
if (smin1 > smax2 || smax1 < smin2)
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
if (!is_jmp32) {
|
||||
/* if 64-bit ranges are inconclusive, see if we can
|
||||
* utilize 32-bit subrange knowledge to eliminate
|
||||
* branches that can't be taken a priori
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (reg1->u32_min_value > reg2->u32_max_value ||
|
||||
reg1->u32_max_value < reg2->u32_min_value)
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
if (reg1->s32_min_value > reg2->s32_max_value ||
|
||||
reg1->s32_max_value < reg2->s32_min_value)
|
||||
return 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case BPF_JSET:
|
||||
if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32)) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user