提交 735b4333 编写于 作者: A Alexei Starovoitov 提交者: David S. Miller

bpf: improve verifier state equivalence

since UNKNOWN_VALUE type is weaker than CONST_IMM we can un-teach
verifier its recognition of constants in conditional branches
without affecting safety.
Ex:
if (reg == 123) {
  .. here verifier was marking reg->type as CONST_IMM
     instead keep reg as UNKNOWN_VALUE
}

Two verifier states with UNKNOWN_VALUE are equivalent, whereas
CONST_IMM_X != CONST_IMM_Y, since CONST_IMM is used for stack range
verification and other cases.
So help search pruning by marking registers as UNKNOWN_VALUE
where possible instead of CONST_IMM.
Signed-off-by: NAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: NDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
上级 969bf05e
master alk-4.19.24 alk-4.19.30 alk-4.19.34 alk-4.19.36 alk-4.19.43 alk-4.19.48 alk-4.19.57 ck-4.19.67 ck-4.19.81 ck-4.19.91 github/fork/deepanshu1422/fix-typo-in-comment github/fork/haosdent/fix-typo linux-next v4.19.91 v4.19.90 v4.19.89 v4.19.88 v4.19.87 v4.19.86 v4.19.85 v4.19.84 v4.19.83 v4.19.82 v4.19.81 v4.19.80 v4.19.79 v4.19.78 v4.19.77 v4.19.76 v4.19.75 v4.19.74 v4.19.73 v4.19.72 v4.19.71 v4.19.70 v4.19.69 v4.19.68 v4.19.67 v4.19.66 v4.19.65 v4.19.64 v4.19.63 v4.19.62 v4.19.61 v4.19.60 v4.19.59 v4.19.58 v4.19.57 v4.19.56 v4.19.55 v4.19.54 v4.19.53 v4.19.52 v4.19.51 v4.19.50 v4.19.49 v4.19.48 v4.19.47 v4.19.46 v4.19.45 v4.19.44 v4.19.43 v4.19.42 v4.19.41 v4.19.40 v4.19.39 v4.19.38 v4.19.37 v4.19.36 v4.19.35 v4.19.34 v4.19.33 v4.19.32 v4.19.31 v4.19.30 v4.19.29 v4.19.28 v4.19.27 v4.19.26 v4.19.25 v4.19.24 v4.19.23 v4.19.22 v4.19.21 v4.19.20 v4.19.19 v4.19.18 v4.19.17 v4.19.16 v4.19.15 v4.19.14 v4.19.13 v4.19.12 v4.19.11 v4.19.10 v4.19.9 v4.19.8 v4.19.7 v4.19.6 v4.19.5 v4.19.4 v4.19.3 v4.19.2 v4.19.1 v4.19 v4.19-rc8 v4.19-rc7 v4.19-rc6 v4.19-rc5 v4.19-rc4 v4.19-rc3 v4.19-rc2 v4.19-rc1 ck-release-21 ck-release-20 ck-release-19.2 ck-release-19.1 ck-release-19 ck-release-18 ck-release-17.2 ck-release-17.1 ck-release-17 ck-release-16 ck-release-15.1 ck-release-15 ck-release-14 ck-release-13.2 ck-release-13 ck-release-12 ck-release-11 ck-release-10 ck-release-9 ck-release-7 alk-release-15 alk-release-14 alk-release-13.2 alk-release-13 alk-release-12 alk-release-11 alk-release-10 alk-release-9 alk-release-7
无相关合并请求
......@@ -1704,12 +1704,11 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct verifier_env *env,
*/
regs[insn->dst_reg].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE;
/* branch targer cannot access it, since reg == 0 */
other_branch->regs[insn->dst_reg].type = CONST_IMM;
other_branch->regs[insn->dst_reg].imm = 0;
mark_reg_unknown_value(other_branch->regs,
insn->dst_reg);
} else {
other_branch->regs[insn->dst_reg].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE;
regs[insn->dst_reg].type = CONST_IMM;
regs[insn->dst_reg].imm = 0;
mark_reg_unknown_value(regs, insn->dst_reg);
}
} else if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && opcode == BPF_JGT &&
dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET &&
......@@ -1718,22 +1717,6 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct verifier_env *env,
} else if (is_pointer_value(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
verbose("R%d pointer comparison prohibited\n", insn->dst_reg);
return -EACCES;
} else if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K &&
(opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE)) {
if (opcode == BPF_JEQ) {
/* detect if (R == imm) goto
* and in the target state recognize that R = imm
*/
other_branch->regs[insn->dst_reg].type = CONST_IMM;
other_branch->regs[insn->dst_reg].imm = insn->imm;
} else {
/* detect if (R != imm) goto
* and in the fall-through state recognize that R = imm
*/
regs[insn->dst_reg].type = CONST_IMM;
regs[insn->dst_reg].imm = insn->imm;
}
}
if (log_level)
print_verifier_state(&env->cur_state);
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册
反馈
建议
客服 返回
顶部