Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+khW7hVwRQwXshymZCotPZyHmWXj7gjZvJO1_NnjnBSNjYj+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220729044317.31975-1-liulin063@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220729044317.31975-1-liulin063@gmail.com>
From:   Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 10:11:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+khW7iknv0hcn-D2tRt8HFseUnyTV7BwpohQHtEyctbA1k27w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Do more tight ALU bounds tracking
To:     Youlin Li <liulin063@gmail.com>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
        yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Youlin,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:44 PM Youlin Li <liulin063@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 32bit bounds and 64bit bounds are updated separately in
> adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() currently, let them learn from each other to
> get more tight bounds tracking. Similar operation can be found in
> reg_set_min_max().
>
> Before:
>
>     func#0 @0
>     0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
>     0: (b7) r0 = 0                        ; R0_w=0
>     1: (b7) r1 = 0                        ; R1_w=0
>     2: (87) r1 = -r1                      ; R1_w=scalar()
>     3: (87) r1 = -r1                      ; R1_w=scalar()
>     4: (c7) r1 s>>= 63                    ; R1_w=scalar(smin=-1,smax=0)
>     5: (07) r1 += 2                       ; R1_w=scalar(umin=1,umax=2,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))  <--- [*]
>     6: (95) exit
>
> It can be seen that even if the 64bit bounds is clear here, the 32bit
> bounds is still in the state of 'UNKNOWN'.
>
> After:
>
>     func#0 @0
>     0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
>     0: (b7) r0 = 0                        ; R0_w=0
>     1: (b7) r1 = 0                        ; R1_w=0
>     2: (87) r1 = -r1                      ; R1_w=scalar()
>     3: (87) r1 = -r1                      ; R1_w=scalar()
>     4: (c7) r1 s>>= 63                    ; R1_w=scalar(smin=-1,smax=0)
>     5: (07) r1 += 2                       ; R1_w=scalar(umin=1,umax=2,var_off=(0x0; 0x3))  <--- [*]
>     6: (95) exit
>
> Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")

This change looks to me like an improvement, rather than a bug fix. We
probably don't need this tag.

> Signed-off-by: Youlin Li <liulin063@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 0efbac0fd126..888aa50fbdc0 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -8934,10 +8934,13 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>                 break;
>         }
>
> -       /* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
> -       if (alu32)
> +       if (alu32) {
> +               /* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
>                 zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
> -       reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
> +               __reg_combine_32_into_64(dst_reg);

This __reg_combine_32_into_64 can be replaced with simply
reg_bounds_sync, because the above zext_32_to_64 has already
propagated 32 to 64. Using reg_bounds_sync would be more efficient.

It turns out we can now fold reg_bounds_sync into zext_32_to_64. Can
you do that and resend? IMO that will make the code slightly cleaner.

> +       } else {
> +               __reg_combine_64_into_32(dst_reg);
> +       }
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>