Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231214062434.3565630-1-menglong8.dong@gmail.com> <20231214062434.3565630-2-menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231214062434.3565630-2-menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 05:49:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+kKxj2hg33CzH_iXdH5fs8wjwpkPP-Jjh41weqf9BEwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: make the verifier tracks the "not
 equal" for regs
To:     Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:28=E2=80=AFPM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
>
> We can derive some new information for BPF_JNE in regs_refine_cond_op().
> Take following code for example:
>
>   /* The type of "a" is u16 */
>   if (a > 0 && a < 100) {
>     /* the range of the register for a is [0, 99], not [1, 99],
>      * and will cause the following error:
>      *
>      *   invalid zero-sized read
>      *
>      * as a can be 0.
>      */
>     bpf_skb_store_bytes(skb, xx, xx, a, 0);
>   }

Please craft a selftest from above with inline asm
(C might not work as compiler might optimize it)

Also we call:
        /* fallthrough (FALSE) branch */
        regs_refine_cond_op(false_reg1, false_reg2,
rev_opcode(opcode), is_jmp32);
        /* jump (TRUE) branch */
        regs_refine_cond_op(true_reg1, true_reg2, opcode, is_jmp32);

so despite BPF_JNE is not handled explicitly it still should have
caught above due to rev_opcode() ?