From d82a532a611572d85fd2610ec41b5c9e222931b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yonghong Song Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:13:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: Fix "unresolved symbol" build error with resolve_btfids Michal reported a build failure likes below: BTFIDS vmlinux FAILED unresolved symbol tcp_timewait_sock make[1]: *** [/.../linux-5.9-rc7/Makefile:1176: vmlinux] Error 255 This error can be triggered when config has CONFIG_NET enabled but CONFIG_INET disabled. In this case, there is no user of istructs inet_timewait_sock and tcp_timewait_sock and hence vmlinux BTF types are not generated for these two structures. To fix the problem, let us force BTF generation for these two structures with BTF_TYPE_EMIT. Fixes: fce557bcef11 ("bpf: Make btf_sock_ids global") Reported-by: Michal Kubecek Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201001051339.2549085-1-yhs@fb.com --- net/core/filter.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c index 21eaf3b182f2..b5f3faac5e3b 100644 --- a/net/core/filter.c +++ b/net/core/filter.c @@ -9558,6 +9558,12 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_skc_to_tcp_sock_proto = { BPF_CALL_1(bpf_skc_to_tcp_timewait_sock, struct sock *, sk) { + /* BTF types for tcp_timewait_sock and inet_timewait_sock are not + * generated if CONFIG_INET=n. Trigger an explicit generation here. + */ + BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct inet_timewait_sock); + BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct tcp_timewait_sock); + #ifdef CONFIG_INET if (sk && sk->sk_prot == &tcp_prot && sk->sk_state == TCP_TIME_WAIT) return (unsigned long)sk; From 5b9fbeb75b6a98955f628e205ac26689bcb1383e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:48:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: Fix scalar32_min_max_or bounds tracking Simon reported an issue with the current scalar32_min_max_or() implementation. That is, compared to the other 32 bit subreg tracking functions, the code in scalar32_min_max_or() stands out that it's using the 64 bit registers instead of 32 bit ones. This leads to bounds tracking issues, for example: [...] 8: R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 9: R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 9: (b7) r0 = 1 10: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 10: (18) r2 = 0x600000002 12: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 12: (ad) if r1 < r2 goto pc+1 R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=25769803778) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 13: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=25769803778) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 13: (95) exit 14: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=25769803777,var_off=(0x0; 0x7ffffffff)) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 14: (25) if r1 > 0x0 goto pc+1 R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 15: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 15: (95) exit 16: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=1,umax_value=25769803777,var_off=(0x0; 0x77fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 16: (47) r1 |= 0 17: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=1,umax_value=32212254719,var_off=(0x1; 0x700000000),s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm [...] The bound tests on the map value force the upper unsigned bound to be 25769803777 in 64 bit (0b11000000000000000000000000000000001) and then lower one to be 1. By using OR they are truncated and thus result in the range [1,1] for the 32 bit reg tracker. This is incorrect given the only thing we know is that the value must be positive and thus 2147483647 (0b1111111111111111111111111111111) at max for the subregs. Fix it by using the {u,s}32_{min,max}_value vars instead. This also makes sense, for example, for the case where we update dst_reg->s32_{min,max}_value in the else branch we need to use the newly computed dst_reg->u32_{min,max}_value as we know that these are positive. Previously, in the else branch the 64 bit values of umin_value=1 and umax_value=32212254719 were used and latter got truncated to be 1 as upper bound there. After the fix the subreg range is now correct: [...] 8: R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 9: R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 9: (b7) r0 = 1 10: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 10: (18) r2 = 0x600000002 12: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 12: (ad) if r1 < r2 goto pc+1 R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=25769803778) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 13: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=25769803778) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 13: (95) exit 14: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=25769803777,var_off=(0x0; 0x7ffffffff)) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 14: (25) if r1 > 0x0 goto pc+1 R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 15: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 15: (95) exit 16: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=1,umax_value=25769803777,var_off=(0x0; 0x77fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm 16: (47) r1 |= 0 17: R0_w=inv1 R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=1,umax_value=32212254719,var_off=(0x0; 0x77fffffff),u32_max_value=2147483647) R2_w=inv25769803778 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm [...] Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Simon Scannell Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 47e74f09fa37..fba52d9ec8fc 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -5667,8 +5667,8 @@ static void scalar32_min_max_or(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, bool src_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(src_reg->var_off); bool dst_known = tnum_subreg_is_const(dst_reg->var_off); struct tnum var32_off = tnum_subreg(dst_reg->var_off); - s32 smin_val = src_reg->smin_value; - u32 umin_val = src_reg->umin_value; + s32 smin_val = src_reg->s32_min_value; + u32 umin_val = src_reg->u32_min_value; /* Assuming scalar64_min_max_or will be called so it is safe * to skip updating register for known case. @@ -5691,8 +5691,8 @@ static void scalar32_min_max_or(struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, /* ORing two positives gives a positive, so safe to * cast result into s64. */ - dst_reg->s32_min_value = dst_reg->umin_value; - dst_reg->s32_max_value = dst_reg->umax_value; + dst_reg->s32_min_value = dst_reg->u32_min_value; + dst_reg->s32_max_value = dst_reg->u32_max_value; } }