-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 151
bpf: properly verify tail call behavior #10335
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: bpf-next_base
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Upstream branch: d6ec090 |
7b6b51d to
2412df8
Compare
A successful ebpf tail call does not return to the caller, but to the caller-of-the-caller, often just finishing the ebpf program altogether. Any restrictions that the verifier needs to take into account - notably the fact that the tail call might have modified packet pointers - are to be checked on the caller-of-the-caller. Checking it on the caller made the verifier refuse perfectly fine programs that would use the packet pointers after a tail call, which is no problem as this code is only executed if the tail call was unsuccessful, i.e. nothing happened. This patch simulates the behavior of a tail call in the verifier. A conditional jump to the code after the tail call is added for the case of an unsucessful tail call, and a return to the caller is simulated for a successful tail call. For the successful case we assume that the tail call returns an int, as tail calls are currently only allowed in functions that return and int. We always assume that the tail call modified the packet pointers, as we do not know what the tail call did. For the unsuccessful case we know nothing happened, so we do not need to add new constraints. This approach also allows to check other problems that may occur with tail calls, namely we are now able to check that precision is properly propagated into subprograms using tail calls, as well as checking the live slots in such a subprogram. Fixes: 1a4607f ("bpf: consider that tail calls invalidate packet pointers") Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Martin Teichmann <[email protected]> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Three tests are added: - invalidate_pkt_pointers_by_tail_call checks that one can use the packet pointer after a tail call. This was originally possible and also poses not problems, but was made impossible by 1a4607f. - invalidate_pkt_pointers_by_static_tail_call tests a corner case found by Eduard Zingerman during the discussion of the original fix, which was broken in that fix. - subprog_result_tail_call tests that precision propagation works correctly across tail calls. This did not work before. Signed-off-by: Martin Teichmann <[email protected]> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
This updates bpf_insn_successors() reflecting that control flow might jump over the instructions between tail call and function exit, verifier might assume that some writes to parent stack always happen, which is not the case. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Martin Teichmann <[email protected]>
A new test is added: caller_stack_write_tail_call tests that the live stack is correctly tracked for a tail call. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Martin Teichmann <[email protected]>
|
Upstream branch: d6ec090 |
49670b9 to
3925210
Compare
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. In-Reply-To-Subject: |
|
Forwarding comment 3553616554 via email |
Pull request for series with
subject: bpf: properly verify tail call behavior
version: 6
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=1025417