IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Convert exceptions_assert.c to bpf_cmp_unlikely() macro.
Since
bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(var, ==, 100));
other code;
will generate assembly code:
if r1 == 100 goto L2;
r0 = 0
call bpf_throw
L1:
other code;
...
L2: goto L1;
LLVM generates redundant basic block with extra goto. LLVM will be fixed eventually.
Right now it's less efficient than __bpf_assert(var, ==, 100) macro that produces:
if r1 == 100 goto L1;
r0 = 0
call bpf_throw
L1:
other code;
But extra goto doesn't hurt the verification process.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231226191148.48536-4-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Similarly to subprog/callback logic, enforce return value of BPF program
using more precise smin/smax range.
We need to adjust a bunch of tests due to a changed format of an error
message.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231202175705.885270-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Instead of always printing numbers as either decimals (and in some
cases, like for "imm=%llx", in hexadecimals), decide the form based on
actual values. For numbers in a reasonably small range (currently,
[0, U16_MAX] for unsigned values, and [S16_MIN, S16_MAX] for signed ones),
emit them as decimals. In all other cases, even for signed values,
emit them in hexadecimals.
For large values hex form is often times way more useful: it's easier to
see an exact difference between 0xffffffff80000000 and 0xffffffff7fffffff,
than between 18446744071562067966 and 18446744071562067967, as one
particular example.
Small values representing small pointer offsets or application
constants, on the other hand, are way more useful to be represented in
decimal notation.
Adjust reg_bounds register state parsing logic to take into account this
change.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231118034623.3320920-8-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Simplify BPF verifier log further by omitting default (and frequently
irrelevant) off=0 and imm=0 parts for non-SCALAR_VALUE registers. As can
be seen from fixed tests, this is often a visual noise for PTR_TO_CTX
register and even for PTR_TO_PACKET registers.
Omitting default values follows the rest of register state logic: we
omit default values to keep verifier log succinct and to highlight
interesting state that deviates from default one. E.g., we do the same
for var_off, when it's unknown, which gives no additional information.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231118034623.3320920-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Currently the way that verifier prints SCALAR_VALUE register state (and
PTR_TO_PACKET, which can have var_off and ranges info as well) is very
ambiguous.
In the name of brevity we are trying to eliminate "unnecessary" output
of umin/umax, smin/smax, u32_min/u32_max, and s32_min/s32_max values, if
possible. Current rules are that if any of those have their default
value (which for mins is the minimal value of its respective types: 0,
S32_MIN, or S64_MIN, while for maxs it's U32_MAX, S32_MAX, S64_MAX, or
U64_MAX) *OR* if there is another min/max value that as matching value.
E.g., if smin=100 and umin=100, we'll emit only umin=10, omitting smin
altogether. This approach has a few problems, being both ambiguous and
sort-of incorrect in some cases.
Ambiguity is due to missing value could be either default value or value
of umin/umax or smin/smax. This is especially confusing when we mix
signed and unsigned ranges. Quite often, umin=0 and smin=0, and so we'll
have only `umin=0` leaving anyone reading verifier log to guess whether
smin is actually 0 or it's actually -9223372036854775808 (S64_MIN). And
often times it's important to know, especially when debugging tricky
issues.
"Sort-of incorrectness" comes from mixing negative and positive values.
E.g., if umin is some large positive number, it can be equal to smin
which is, interpreted as signed value, is actually some negative value.
Currently, that smin will be omitted and only umin will be emitted with
a large positive value, giving an impression that smin is also positive.
Anyway, ambiguity is the biggest issue making it impossible to have an
exact understanding of register state, preventing any sort of automated
testing of verifier state based on verifier log. This patch is
attempting to rectify the situation by removing ambiguity, while
minimizing the verboseness of register state output.
The rules are straightforward:
- if some of the values are missing, then it definitely has a default
value. I.e., `umin=0` means that umin is zero, but smin is actually
S64_MIN;
- all the various boundaries that happen to have the same value are
emitted in one equality separated sequence. E.g., if umin and smin are
both 100, we'll emit `smin=umin=100`, making this explicit;
- we do not mix negative and positive values together, and even if
they happen to have the same bit-level value, they will be emitted
separately with proper sign. I.e., if both umax and smax happen to be
0xffffffffffffffff, we'll emit them both separately as
`smax=-1,umax=18446744073709551615`;
- in the name of a bit more uniformity and consistency,
{u32,s32}_{min,max} are renamed to {s,u}{min,max}32, which seems to
improve readability.
The above means that in case of all 4 ranges being, say, [50, 100] range,
we'd previously see hugely ambiguous:
R1=scalar(umin=50,umax=100)
Now, we'll be more explicit:
R1=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=50,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=100)
This is slightly more verbose, but distinct from the case when we don't
know anything about signed boundaries and 32-bit boundaries, which under
new rules will match the old case:
R1=scalar(umin=50,umax=100)
Also, in the name of simplicity of implementation and consistency, order
for {s,u}32_{min,max} are emitted *before* var_off. Previously they were
emitted afterwards, for unclear reasons.
This patch also includes a few fixes to selftests that expect exact
register state to accommodate slight changes to verifier format. You can
see that the changes are pretty minimal in common cases.
Note, the special case when SCALAR_VALUE register is a known constant
isn't changed, we'll emit constant value once, interpreted as signed
value.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231011223728.3188086-5-andrii@kernel.org
Add selftests to cover success and failure cases of API usage, runtime
behavior and invariants that need to be maintained for implementation
correctness.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912233214.1518551-18-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
