Re: [Bug Report] bpf: incorrectly pruning runtime execution path

From: Eduard Zingerman
Date: Wed Dec 13 2023 - 18:35:44 EST


On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 11:25 +0100, Hao Sun wrote:
[...]

> I tried to convert the repro to a valid test case in inline asm, but seems
> JSET (if r0 & 0xfffffffe goto pc+3) is currently not supported in clang-17.
> Will try after clang-18 is released.
>
> #30 is expected to be executed, see below where everything after ";" is
> the runtime value:
> ...
> 6: (36) if w8 >= 0x69 goto pc+1 ; w8 = 0xbe, always taken
> ...
> 11: (45) if r0 & 0xfffffffe goto pc+3 ; r0 = 0x616, taken
> ...
> 18: (56) if w8 != 0xf goto pc+3 ; w8 not touched, taken
> ...
> 23: (bf) r5 = r8 ; w5 = 0xbe
> 24: (18) r2 = 0x4
> 26: (7e) if w8 s>= w0 goto pc+5 ; non-taken
> 27: (4f) r8 |= r8
> 28: (0f) r8 += r8
> 29: (d6) if w5 s<= 0x1d goto pc+2 ; non-taken
> 30: (18) r0 = 0x4 ; executed
>
> Since the verifier prunes at #26, #30 is dead and eliminated. So, #30
> is executed after manually commenting out the dead code rewrite pass.
>
> From my understanding, I think r0 should be marked as precise when
> first backtrack from #29, because r5 range at this point depends on w0
> as r8 and r5 share the same id at #26.

Hi Hao, Andrii,

I converted program in question to a runnable test, here is a link to
the patch adding it and disabling dead code removal:
https://gist.github.com/eddyz87/e888ad70c947f28f94146a47e33cd378

Run the test as follows:
./test_progs -vvv -a verifier_and/pruning_test

And inspect the retval:
do_prog_test_run:PASS:bpf_prog_test_run 0 nsec
run_subtest:FAIL:647 Unexpected retval: 1353935089 != 4

Note that I tried this test with two functions:
- bpf_get_current_cgroup_id, with this function I get retval 2, not 4 :)
- bpf_get_prandom_u32, with this function I get a random retval each time.

What is the expectation when 'bpf_get_current_cgroup_id' is used?
That it is some known (to us) number, but verifier treats it as unknown scalar?

Also, I find this portion of the verification log strange:

...
13: (0f) r0 += r0 ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=2,
var_off=(0x0; 0x3))
14: (2f) r4 *= r4 ; R4_w=scalar()
15: (18) r3 = 0x1f00000034 ; R3_w=0x1f00000034
17: (c4) w4 s>>= 29 ; R4_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=-4,smax32=3,
var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
18: (56) if w8 != 0xf goto pc+3 ; R8_w=scalar(smin=0x800000000000000f,smax=0x7fffffff0000000f,
umin=smin32=umin32=15,umax=0xffffffff0000000f,
smax32=umax32=15,var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000))
19: (d7) r3 = bswap32 r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
20: (18) r2 = 0x1c ; R2=28
22: (67) r4 <<= 2 ; R4_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0x3fffffffc,
smax32=0x7ffffffc,umax32=0xfffffffc,
var_off=(0x0; 0x3fffffffc))
23: (bf) r5 = r8 ; R5_w=scalar(id=1,smin=0x800000000000000f,
smax=0x7fffffff0000000f,
umin=smin32=umin32=15,
umax=0xffffffff0000000f,
smax32=umax32=15,
var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000))
R8=scalar(id=1,smin=0x800000000000000f,
smax=0x7fffffff0000000f,
umin=smin32=umin32=15,
umax=0xffffffff0000000f,
smax32=umax32=15,
var_off=(0xf; 0xffffffff00000000))
24: (18) r2 = 0x4 ; R2_w=4
26: (7e) if w8 s>= w0 goto pc+5
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 26 first_idx 22 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r5,r8 stack= before 24: (18) r2 = 0x4
... ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
Here w8 == 15, w0 in range [0, 2], so the jump is being predicted,
but for some reason R0 is not among the registers that would be marked precise.