Re: WARNING in __mark_chain_precision
From: Yonghong Song
Date: Wed Jan 04 2023 - 00:48:09 EST
On 1/3/23 10:27 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 1:42 AM Hao Sun <sunhao.th@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxxxx> 于2023年1月2日周一 03:20写道：
On 12/30/22 1:44 AM, Hao Sun wrote:
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年12月30日周五 06:16写道：
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 9:24 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/20/22 4:30 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/19, Hao Sun wrote:
Hi,
The following backtracking bug can be triggered on the latest bpf-next and
Linux 6.1 with the C prog provided. I don't have enough knowledge about
this part in the verifier, don't know how to fix this.
Maybe something related to commit be2ef8161572 ("bpf: allow precision
tracking
for programs with subprogs") and/or the related ones?
This can be reproduced on:
HEAD commit: 0e43662e61f2 tools/resolve_btfids: Use pkg-config to locate
libelf
git tree: bpf-next
console log: https://pastebin.com/raw/45hZ7iqm
kernel config: https://pastebin.com/raw/0pu1CHRm
C reproducer: https://pastebin.com/raw/tqsiezvT
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
0: (18) r2 = 0x8000000000000 ; R2_w=2251799813685248
2: (18) r6 = 0xffff888027358000 ;
R6_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=3032,vs=3664,imm=0)
4: (18) r7 = 0xffff88802735a000 ;
R7_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=156,vs=2624,imm=0)
6: (18) r8 = 0xffff88802735e000 ;
R8_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=2396,vs=76,imm=0)
8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000 ; R9_w=156779191205888
10: (36) if w9 >= 0xffffffe3 goto pc+1
last_idx 10 first_idx 0
regs=200 stack=0 before 8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000
11: R9_w=156779191205888
11: (85) call #0
12: (cc) w2 s>>= w7
w2 should have been set to NOT_INIT (because r1-r5 are clobbered by
calls) and rejected here as !read_ok (see check_reg_arg()) before
attempting to mark precision for r2. Can you please try to debug and
understand why that didn't happen here?
The verifier is doing the right thing here and the 'call #0' does
implicitly cleared r1-r5.
So for 'w2 s>>= w7', since w2 is used, the verifier tries to find
its definition by backtracing. It encountered 'call #0', which clears
and that's what I'm saying is incorrect. Normally we'd get !read_ok
error because s>>= is both READ and WRITE on w2, which is
uninitialized after call instruction according to BPF ABI. And that's
what actually seems to happen correctly in my (simpler) tests locally.
But something is special about this specific repro that somehow either
bypasses this logic, or attempts to mark precision before we get to
that test. That's what we should investigate. I haven't tried to run
this specific repro locally yet, so can't tell for sure.
So, the reason why w2 is not marked as uninit is that the kfunc call in
the BPF program is invalid, "call #0", imm is zero, right?
Yes, "call #0" is invalid. As the code below
/* skip for now, but return error when we find this in
fixup_kfunc_call */
if (!insn->imm)
return 0;
The error report will be delayed later in fixup_kfunc_call().
static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct
bpf_insn *insn,
struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, int insn_idx,
int *cnt)
{
const struct bpf_kfunc_desc *desc;
if (!insn->imm) {
verbose(env, "invalid kernel function call not
eliminated in verifier pass\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
In check_kfunc_call(), it skips this error temporarily:
/* skip for now, but return error when we find this in fixup_kfunc_call */
if (!insn->imm)
return 0;
So the kfunc call is the previous instruction before "w2 s>>= w7", this
leads to the warning in backtrack_insn():
/* regular helper call sets R0 */
*reg_mask &= ~1;
if (*reg_mask & 0x3f) {
/* if backtracing was looking for registers R1-R5
* they should have been found already.
*/
verbose(env, "BUG regs %x\n", *reg_mask);
WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug”);
return -EFAULT;
}
The main triggering the backtrack_insn() is due to
} else {
/* scalar += pointer
* This is legal, but we have to
reverse our
* src/dest handling in computing the range
*/
err = mark_chain_precision(env,
insn->dst_reg);
if (err)
return err;
return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn,
src_reg,
dst_reg);
}
unc#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
0: (18) r2 = 0x8000000000000 ; R2_w=2251799813685248
2: (18) r6 = 0xffff888100d29000 ;
R6_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=3032,vs=3664,imm=0)
4: (18) r7 = 0xffff888100d2a000 ;
R7_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=156,vs=2624,imm=0)
6: (18) r8 = 0xffff888100d2ac00 ;
R8_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=2396,vs=76,imm=0)
8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000 ; R9_w=156779191205888
10: (36) if w9 >= 0xffffffe3 goto pc+1
last_idx 10 first_idx 0
regs=200 stack=0 before 8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000
11: R9_w=156779191205888
11: (85) call #0
12: (cc) w2 s>>= w7
last_idx 12 first_idx 12
parent didn't have regs=4 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0)
R2_rw=P2251799813685248 R6_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=3032,vs=3664,imm=0)
R7_rw=map_ptr(off=0,ks=156,vs=2624,imm=0) R8_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=2396,v0
last_idx 11 first_idx 0
regs=4 stack=0 before 11: (85) call #0
BUG regs 4
For insn 12, 'w2 s>>= w7', w2 is a scalar and w7 is a map_ptr. Hence,
based on the above verifier code, mark_chain_precision() is triggered.
Not sure what is the purpose of this test. But to make it succeed,
first "call #0" need to change to a valid kfunc call, and second, you
might want to change 'w2 s>>= w7' to e.g., 'w9 s>>= w7' to avoid
precision tracking.
The purpose is not to make the test "succeed", the verifier temporarily
skips the invalid kfunc insn "call #0", but this insn triggered a warning
in backtrack_insn(), while it is supposed to reject the program either
due to insn#12 32bit ptr alu or insn#11 invalid kfunc.
Maybe something like the bellow, after applying the patch, the reproducer
is rejected:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
0: (18) r2 = 0x8000000000000 ; R2_w=2251799813685248
2: (18) r6 = 0xffff88817d563000 ; R6_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=3032,vs=3664,imm=0)
4: (18) r7 = 0xffff888171ee9000 ; R7_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=156,vs=2624,imm=0)
6: (18) r8 = 0xffff888171ee8000 ; R8_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=2396,vs=76,imm=0)
8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000 ; R9_w=156779191205888
10: (36) if w9 >= 0xffffffe3 goto pc+1
last_idx 10 first_idx 0
regs=200 stack=0 before 8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000
11: R9_w=156779191205888
11: (85) call #0
12: (cc) w2 s>>= w7
last_idx 12 first_idx 12
parent didn't have regs=4 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R2_rw=P2251799813685248 R6_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=3032,vs=3664,imm=0) R7_rw=map_ptr(off=0,ks=156,vs=2624,imm=0) R8_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=2396,vs=76,imm=0) R9_w=156779191205888 R10=fp0
last_idx 11 first_idx 0
regs=4 stack=0 before 11: (85) call #0
regs=4 stack=0 before 10: (36) if w9 >= 0xffffffe3 goto pc+1
regs=4 stack=0 before 8: (18) r9 = 0x8e9700000000
regs=4 stack=0 before 6: (18) r8 = 0xffff888171ee8000
regs=4 stack=0 before 4: (18) r7 = 0xffff888171ee9000
regs=4 stack=0 before 2: (18) r6 = 0xffff88817d563000
regs=4 stack=0 before 0: (18) r2 = 0x8000000000000
R2 32-bit pointer arithmetic prohibited
processed 8 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 4a25375ebb0d..abc7e96d826f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2743,6 +2743,9 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
*reg_mask |= sreg;
} else if (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32) {
if (opcode == BPF_CALL) {
+ /* skip for now, should return error when we find this in fixup_kfunc_call */
+ if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL && insn->imm == 0)
+ return 0;
Makes sense to me. Please submit as an official patch
with s/return 0/return -ENOTSUPP/
Also 'skip for now' isn't quite correct here.
In check_kfunc_call() it's correct, since invalid kfunc with imm==0
could be eliminated during dead code elimination,
but since we're walking this insn here in backtrack_insn
the dead code elimination is not going to kick in.
So it's surely invalid kfunc call if we see it in backtrack_insn.
The comment should probably be something like:
/* kfunc with imm==0 is invalid and fixup_kfunc_call will catch
this error later. Make backtracking conservative with ENOTSUPP. */
Do we have the same issue if we have
call #1 <or some valid kfunc>
instead of
call #0
?