Author | Tokens | Token Proportion | Commits | Commit Proportion |
---|---|---|---|---|
Andrii Nakryiko | 2871 | 94.38% | 3 | 37.50% |
Eduard Zingerman | 164 | 5.39% | 2 | 25.00% |
Alexei Starovoitov | 4 | 0.13% | 1 | 12.50% |
Yonghong Song | 2 | 0.07% | 1 | 12.50% |
Andrei Matei | 1 | 0.03% | 1 | 12.50% |
Total | 3042 | 8 |
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 /* Copyright (c) 2023 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */ #include <stdbool.h> #include <linux/bpf.h> #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> #include "bpf_misc.h" #define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (int)(sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0])) static volatile int zero = 0; int my_pid; int arr[256]; int small_arr[16] SEC(".data.small_arr"); struct { __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH); __uint(max_entries, 10); __type(key, int); __type(value, int); } amap SEC(".maps"); #ifdef REAL_TEST #define MY_PID_GUARD() if (my_pid != (bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32)) return 0 #else #define MY_PID_GUARD() ({ }) #endif SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed") int iter_err_unsafe_c_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, i = zero; /* obscure initial value of i */ MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 1000); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { i++; } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); small_arr[i] = 123; /* invalid */ return 0; } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("unbounded memory access") int iter_err_unsafe_asm_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; MY_PID_GUARD(); asm volatile ( "r6 = %[zero];" /* iteration counter */ "r1 = %[it];" /* iterator state */ "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 1000;" "r4 = 1;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "loop:" "r1 = %[it];" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto out;" "r6 += 1;" "goto loop;" "out:" "r1 = %[it];" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r1 = %[small_arr];" "r2 = r6;" "r2 <<= 2;" "r1 += r2;" "*(u32 *)(r1 + 0) = r6;" /* invalid */ : : [it]"r"(&it), [small_arr]"p"(small_arr), [zero]"p"(zero), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) : __clobber_common, "r6" ); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_while_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 3); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E1 VAL: v=%d", *v); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_while_loop_auto_cleanup(const void *ctx) { __attribute__((cleanup(bpf_iter_num_destroy))) struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 3); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E1 VAL: v=%d", *v); } /* (!) no explicit bpf_iter_num_destroy() */ return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_for_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 5, 10); for (v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); v; v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it)) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E2 VAL: v=%d", *v); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_bpf_for_each_macro(const void *ctx) { int *v; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_for_each(num, v, 5, 10) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E2 VAL: v=%d", *v); } return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_bpf_for_macro(const void *ctx) { int i; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_for(i, 5, 10) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E2 VAL: v=%d", i); } return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_pragma_unroll_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, i; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 2); #pragma nounroll for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E3 VAL: i=%d v=%d", i, v ? *v : -1); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_manual_unroll_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 100, 200); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d\n", v ? *v : -1); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_multiple_sequential_loops(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, i; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 3); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E1 VAL: v=%d", *v); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 5, 10); for (v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); v; v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it)) { bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E2 VAL: v=%d", *v); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 2); #pragma nounroll for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E3 VAL: i=%d v=%d", i, v ? *v : -1); } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 100, 200); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d", v ? *v : -1); v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_BASIC: E4 VAL: v=%d\n", v ? *v : -1); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_limit_cond_break_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, i = 0, sum = 0; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 10); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { bpf_printk("ITER_SIMPLE: i=%d v=%d", i, *v); sum += *v; i++; if (i > 3) break; } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_SIMPLE: sum=%d\n", sum); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_obfuscate_counter(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, sum = 0; /* Make i's initial value unknowable for verifier to prevent it from * pruning if/else branch inside the loop body and marking i as precise. */ int i = zero; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 10); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { int x; i += 1; /* If we initialized i as `int i = 0;` above, verifier would * track that i becomes 1 on first iteration after increment * above, and here verifier would eagerly prune else branch * and mark i as precise, ruining open-coded iterator logic * completely, as each next iteration would have a different * *precise* value of i, and thus there would be no * convergence of state. This would result in reaching maximum * instruction limit, no matter what the limit is. */ if (i == 1) x = 123; else x = i * 3 + 1; bpf_printk("ITER_OBFUSCATE_COUNTER: i=%d v=%d x=%d", i, *v, x); sum += x; } bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_printk("ITER_OBFUSCATE_COUNTER: sum=%d\n", sum); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_search_loop(const void *ctx) { struct bpf_iter_num it; int *v, *elem = NULL; bool found = false; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, 10); while ((v = bpf_iter_num_next(&it))) { bpf_printk("ITER_SEARCH_LOOP: v=%d", *v); if (*v == 2) { found = true; elem = v; barrier_var(elem); } } /* should fail to verify if bpf_iter_num_destroy() is here */ if (found) /* here found element will be wrong, we should have copied * value to a variable, but here we want to make sure we can * access memory after the loop anyways */ bpf_printk("ITER_SEARCH_LOOP: FOUND IT = %d!\n", *elem); else bpf_printk("ITER_SEARCH_LOOP: NOT FOUND IT!\n"); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_array_fill(const void *ctx) { int sum, i; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_for(i, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr)) { arr[i] = i * 2; } sum = 0; bpf_for(i, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr)) { sum += arr[i]; } bpf_printk("ITER_ARRAY_FILL: sum=%d (should be %d)\n", sum, 255 * 256); return 0; } static int arr2d[4][5]; static int arr2d_row_sums[4]; static int arr2d_col_sums[5]; SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_nested_iters(const void *ctx) { int sum, row, col; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { bpf_for( col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { arr2d[row][col] = row * col; } } /* zero-initialize sums */ sum = 0; bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { arr2d_row_sums[row] = 0; } bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { arr2d_col_sums[col] = 0; } /* calculate sums */ bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { sum += arr2d[row][col]; arr2d_row_sums[row] += arr2d[row][col]; arr2d_col_sums[col] += arr2d[row][col]; } } bpf_printk("ITER_NESTED_ITERS: total sum=%d", sum); bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { bpf_printk("ITER_NESTED_ITERS: row #%d sum=%d", row, arr2d_row_sums[row]); } bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { bpf_printk("ITER_NESTED_ITERS: col #%d sum=%d%s", col, arr2d_col_sums[col], col == ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0]) - 1 ? "\n" : ""); } return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_nested_deeply_iters(const void *ctx) { int sum = 0; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_repeat(10) { bpf_repeat(10) { bpf_repeat(10) { bpf_repeat(10) { bpf_repeat(10) { sum += 1; } } } } /* validate that we can break from inside bpf_repeat() */ break; } return sum; } static __noinline void fill_inner_dimension(int row) { int col; bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { arr2d[row][col] = row * col; } } static __noinline int sum_inner_dimension(int row) { int sum = 0, col; bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { sum += arr2d[row][col]; arr2d_row_sums[row] += arr2d[row][col]; arr2d_col_sums[col] += arr2d[row][col]; } return sum; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_subprog_iters(const void *ctx) { int sum, row, col; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { fill_inner_dimension(row); } /* zero-initialize sums */ sum = 0; bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { arr2d_row_sums[row] = 0; } bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { arr2d_col_sums[col] = 0; } /* calculate sums */ bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { sum += sum_inner_dimension(row); } bpf_printk("ITER_SUBPROG_ITERS: total sum=%d", sum); bpf_for(row, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d)) { bpf_printk("ITER_SUBPROG_ITERS: row #%d sum=%d", row, arr2d_row_sums[row]); } bpf_for(col, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0])) { bpf_printk("ITER_SUBPROG_ITERS: col #%d sum=%d%s", col, arr2d_col_sums[col], col == ARRAY_SIZE(arr2d[0]) - 1 ? "\n" : ""); } return 0; } struct { __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY); __type(key, int); __type(value, int); __uint(max_entries, 1000); } arr_map SEC(".maps"); SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("invalid mem access 'scalar'") int iter_err_too_permissive1(const void *ctx) { int *map_val = NULL; int key = 0; MY_PID_GUARD(); map_val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&arr_map, &key); if (!map_val) return 0; bpf_repeat(1000000) { map_val = NULL; } *map_val = 123; return 0; } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null'") int iter_err_too_permissive2(const void *ctx) { int *map_val = NULL; int key = 0; MY_PID_GUARD(); map_val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&arr_map, &key); if (!map_val) return 0; bpf_repeat(1000000) { map_val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&arr_map, &key); } *map_val = 123; return 0; } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null'") int iter_err_too_permissive3(const void *ctx) { int *map_val = NULL; int key = 0; bool found = false; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_repeat(1000000) { map_val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&arr_map, &key); found = true; } if (found) *map_val = 123; return 0; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_tricky_but_fine(const void *ctx) { int *map_val = NULL; int key = 0; bool found = false; MY_PID_GUARD(); bpf_repeat(1000000) { map_val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&arr_map, &key); if (map_val) { found = true; break; } } if (found) *map_val = 123; return 0; } #define __bpf_memzero(p, sz) bpf_probe_read_kernel((p), (sz), 0) SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_stack_array_loop(const void *ctx) { long arr1[16], arr2[16], sum = 0; int i; MY_PID_GUARD(); /* zero-init arr1 and arr2 in such a way that verifier doesn't know * it's all zeros; if we don't do that, we'll make BPF verifier track * all combination of zero/non-zero stack slots for arr1/arr2, which * will lead to O(2^(ARRAY_SIZE(arr1)+ARRAY_SIZE(arr2))) different * states */ __bpf_memzero(arr1, sizeof(arr1)); __bpf_memzero(arr2, sizeof(arr1)); /* validate that we can break and continue when using bpf_for() */ bpf_for(i, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr1)) { if (i & 1) { arr1[i] = i; continue; } else { arr2[i] = i; break; } } bpf_for(i, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(arr1)) { sum += arr1[i] + arr2[i]; } return sum; } static __noinline void fill(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr, __u32 n, int mul) { int *t, i; while ((t = bpf_iter_num_next(it))) { i = *t; if (i >= n) break; arr[i] = i * mul; } } static __noinline int sum(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int *arr, __u32 n) { int *t, i, sum = 0;; while ((t = bpf_iter_num_next(it))) { i = *t; if ((__u32)i >= n) break; sum += arr[i]; } return sum; } SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_pass_iter_ptr_to_subprog(const void *ctx) { int arr1[16], arr2[32]; struct bpf_iter_num it; int n, sum1, sum2; MY_PID_GUARD(); /* fill arr1 */ n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr1); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n); fill(&it, arr1, n, 2); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); /* fill arr2 */ n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr2); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n); fill(&it, arr2, n, 10); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); /* sum arr1 */ n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr1); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n); sum1 = sum(&it, arr1, n); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); /* sum arr2 */ n = ARRAY_SIZE(arr2); bpf_iter_num_new(&it, 0, n); sum2 = sum(&it, arr2, n); bpf_iter_num_destroy(&it); bpf_printk("sum1=%d, sum2=%d", sum1, sum2); return 0; } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("R1 type=scalar expected=fp") __naked int delayed_read_mark(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * The call to bpf_iter_num_next() is reachable with r7 values &fp[-16] and 0xdead. * State with r7=&fp[-16] is visited first and follows r6 != 42 ... continue branch. * At this point iterator next() call is reached with r7 that has no read mark. * Loop body with r7=0xdead would only be visited if verifier would decide to continue * with second loop iteration. Absence of read mark on r7 might affect state * equivalent logic used for iterator convergence tracking. * * r7 = &fp[-16] * fp[-16] = 0 * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10) * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) { * r6++ * if (r6 != 42) { * r7 = 0xdead * continue; * } * bpf_probe_read_user(r7, 8, 0xdeadbeef); // this is not safe * } * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]) * return 0 */ asm volatile ( "r7 = r10;" "r7 += -16;" "r0 = 0;" "*(u64 *)(r7 + 0) = r0;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "r6 = r0;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "1:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto 2f;" "r6 += 1;" "if r6 != 42 goto 3f;" "r7 = 0xdead;" "goto 1b;" "3:" "r1 = r7;" "r2 = 8;" "r3 = 0xdeadbeef;" "call %[bpf_probe_read_user];" "goto 1b;" "2:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy), __imm(bpf_probe_read_user) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("math between fp pointer and register with unbounded") __naked int delayed_precision_mark(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * The test is similar to delayed_iter_mark but verifies that incomplete * precision don't fool verifier. * The call to bpf_iter_num_next() is reachable with r7 values -16 and -32. * State with r7=-16 is visited first and follows r6 != 42 ... continue branch. * At this point iterator next() call is reached with r7 that has no read * and precision marks. * Loop body with r7=-32 would only be visited if verifier would decide to continue * with second loop iteration. Absence of precision mark on r7 might affect state * equivalent logic used for iterator convergence tracking. * * r8 = 0 * fp[-16] = 0 * r7 = -16 * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10) * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) { * if (r6 != 42) { * r7 = -32 * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() * continue; * } * r0 = r10 * r0 += r7 * r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0) // this is not safe * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() * } * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]) * return r8 */ asm volatile ( "r8 = 0;" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r8;" "r7 = -16;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "r6 = r0;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "1:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;\n" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto 2f;" "if r6 != 42 goto 3f;" "r7 = -33;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "r6 = r0;" "goto 1b;\n" "3:" "r0 = r10;" "r0 += r7;" "r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0);" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "r6 = r0;" "goto 1b;\n" "2:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = r8;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy), __imm(bpf_probe_read_user) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("math between fp pointer and register with unbounded") __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ) __naked int loop_state_deps1(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * * The case turns out to be tricky in a sense that: * - states with c=-25 are explored only on a second iteration * of the outer loop; * - states with read+precise mark on c are explored only on * second iteration of the inner loop and in a state which * is pushed to states stack first. * * Depending on the details of iterator convergence logic * verifier might stop states traversal too early and miss * unsafe c=-25 memory access. * * j = iter_new(); // fp[-16] * a = 0; // r6 * b = 0; // r7 * c = -24; // r8 * while (iter_next(j)) { * i = iter_new(); // fp[-8] * a = 0; // r6 * b = 0; // r7 * while (iter_next(i)) { * if (a == 1) { * a = 0; * b = 1; * } else if (a == 0) { * a = 1; * if (random() == 42) * continue; * if (b == 1) { * *(r10 + c) = 7; // this is not safe * iter_destroy(i); * iter_destroy(j); * return; * } * } * } * iter_destroy(i); * a = 0; * b = 0; * c = -25; * } * iter_destroy(j); * return; */ asm volatile ( "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "r8 = -24;" "j_loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto j_loop_end_%=;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "i_loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto i_loop_end_%=;" "check_one_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 1 goto check_zero_r6_%=;" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 1;" "goto i_loop_%=;" "check_zero_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 0 goto i_loop_%=;" "r6 = 1;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto check_one_r7_%=;" "goto i_loop_%=;" "check_one_r7_%=:" "if r7 != 1 goto i_loop_%=;" "r0 = r10;" "r0 += r8;" "r1 = 7;" "*(u64 *)(r0 + 0) = r1;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" "i_loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "r8 = -25;" "goto j_loop_%=;" "j_loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("?raw_tp") __failure __msg("math between fp pointer and register with unbounded") __flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ) __naked int loop_state_deps2(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * * The case turns out to be tricky in a sense that: * - states with read+precise mark on c are explored only on a second * iteration of the first inner loop and in a state which is pushed to * states stack first. * - states with c=-25 are explored only on a second iteration of the * second inner loop and in a state which is pushed to states stack * first. * * Depending on the details of iterator convergence logic * verifier might stop states traversal too early and miss * unsafe c=-25 memory access. * * j = iter_new(); // fp[-16] * a = 0; // r6 * b = 0; // r7 * c = -24; // r8 * while (iter_next(j)) { * i = iter_new(); // fp[-8] * a = 0; // r6 * b = 0; // r7 * while (iter_next(i)) { * if (a == 1) { * a = 0; * b = 1; * } else if (a == 0) { * a = 1; * if (random() == 42) * continue; * if (b == 1) { * *(r10 + c) = 7; // this is not safe * iter_destroy(i); * iter_destroy(j); * return; * } * } * } * iter_destroy(i); * i = iter_new(); // fp[-8] * a = 0; // r6 * b = 0; // r7 * while (iter_next(i)) { * if (a == 1) { * a = 0; * b = 1; * } else if (a == 0) { * a = 1; * if (random() == 42) * continue; * if (b == 1) { * a = 0; * c = -25; * } * } * } * iter_destroy(i); * } * iter_destroy(j); * return; */ asm volatile ( "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "r8 = -24;" "j_loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto j_loop_end_%=;" /* first inner loop */ "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "i_loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto i_loop_end_%=;" "check_one_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 1 goto check_zero_r6_%=;" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 1;" "goto i_loop_%=;" "check_zero_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 0 goto i_loop_%=;" "r6 = 1;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto check_one_r7_%=;" "goto i_loop_%=;" "check_one_r7_%=:" "if r7 != 1 goto i_loop_%=;" "r0 = r10;" "r0 += r8;" "r1 = 7;" "*(u64 *)(r0 + 0) = r1;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" "i_loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" /* second inner loop */ "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "i2_loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto i2_loop_end_%=;" "check2_one_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 1 goto check2_zero_r6_%=;" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 1;" "goto i2_loop_%=;" "check2_zero_r6_%=:" "if r6 != 0 goto i2_loop_%=;" "r6 = 1;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto check2_one_r7_%=;" "goto i2_loop_%=;" "check2_one_r7_%=:" "if r7 != 1 goto i2_loop_%=;" "r6 = 0;" "r8 = -25;" "goto i2_loop_%=;" "i2_loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r6 = 0;" "r7 = 0;" "goto j_loop_%=;" "j_loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -16;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("?raw_tp") __success __naked int triple_continue(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * High branching factor of the loop body turned out to be * problematic for one of the iterator convergence tracking * algorithms explored. * * r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10) * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) { * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42) * continue; * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42) * continue; * if (bpf_get_prandom_u32() != 42) * continue; * r0 += 0; * } * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]) * return 0 */ asm volatile ( "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto loop_end_%=;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;" "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];" "if r0 != 42 goto loop_%=;" "r0 += 0;" "goto loop_%=;" "loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("?raw_tp") __success __naked int widen_spill(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * The counter is stored in fp[-16], if this counter is not widened * verifier states representing loop iterations would never converge. * * fp[-16] = 0 * bpf_iter_num_new(&fp[-8], 0, 10) * while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) { * r0 = fp[-16]; * r0 += 1; * fp[-16] = r0; * } * bpf_iter_num_destroy(&fp[-8]) * return 0 */ asm volatile ( "r0 = 0;" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0;" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto loop_end_%=;" "r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 16);" "r0 += 1;" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0;" "goto loop_%=;" "loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy) : __clobber_all ); } SEC("raw_tp") __success __naked int checkpoint_states_deletion(void) { /* This is equivalent to C program below. * * int *a, *b, *c, *d, *e, *f; * int i, sum = 0; * bpf_for(i, 0, 10) { * a = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * b = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * c = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * d = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * f = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&amap, &i); * if (a) sum += 1; * if (b) sum += 1; * if (c) sum += 1; * if (d) sum += 1; * if (e) sum += 1; * if (f) sum += 1; * } * return 0; * * The body of the loop spawns multiple simulation paths * with different combination of NULL/non-NULL information for a/b/c/d/e/f. * Each combination is unique from states_equal() point of view. * Explored states checkpoint is created after each iterator next call. * Iterator convergence logic expects that eventually current state * would get equal to one of the explored states and thus loop * exploration would be finished (at-least for a specific path). * Verifier evicts explored states with high miss to hit ratio * to to avoid comparing current state with too many explored * states per instruction. * This test is designed to "stress test" eviction policy defined using formula: * * sl->miss_cnt > sl->hit_cnt * N + N // if true sl->state is evicted * * Currently N is set to 64, which allows for 6 variables in this test. */ asm volatile ( "r6 = 0;" /* a */ "r7 = 0;" /* b */ "r8 = 0;" /* c */ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 24) = r6;" /* d */ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 32) = r6;" /* e */ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 40) = r6;" /* f */ "r9 = 0;" /* sum */ "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "r2 = 0;" "r3 = 10;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_new];" "loop_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_next];" "if r0 == 0 goto loop_end_%=;" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "r6 = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "r7 = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "r8 = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 24) = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 32) = r0;" "r1 = %[amap] ll;" "r2 = r10;" "r2 += -16;" "call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];" "*(u64 *)(r10 - 40) = r0;" "if r6 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "if r7 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "if r8 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 24);" "if r0 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 32);" "if r0 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "r0 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 40);" "if r0 == 0 goto +1;" "r9 += 1;" "goto loop_%=;" "loop_end_%=:" "r1 = r10;" "r1 += -8;" "call %[bpf_iter_num_destroy];" "r0 = 0;" "exit;" : : __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem), __imm(bpf_iter_num_new), __imm(bpf_iter_num_next), __imm(bpf_iter_num_destroy), __imm_addr(amap) : __clobber_all ); } struct { int data[32]; int n; } loop_data; SEC("raw_tp") __success int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) { int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) return 0; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { /* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */ sum += loop_data.data[i]; } return sum; } char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
Information contained on this website is for historical information purposes only and does not indicate or represent copyright ownership.
Created with Cregit http://github.com/cregit/cregit
Version 2.0-RC1