Skip to content

Commit 7a433e5

Browse files
puranjaymohanAlexei Starovoitov
authored andcommitted
bpf: Support negative offsets, BPF_SUB, and alu32 for linked register tracking
Previously, the verifier only tracked positive constant deltas between linked registers using BPF_ADD. This limitation meant patterns like: r1 = r0; r1 += -4; if r1 s>= 0 goto l0_%=; // r1 >= 0 implies r0 >= 4 // verifier couldn't propagate bounds back to r0 if r0 != 0 goto l0_%=; r0 /= 0; // Verifier thinks this is reachable l0_%=: Similar limitation exists for 32-bit registers. With this change, the verifier can now track negative deltas in reg->off enabling bound propagation for the above pattern. For alu32, we make sure the destination register has the upper 32 bits as 0s before creating the link. BPF_ADD_CONST is split into BPF_ADD_CONST64 and BPF_ADD_CONST32, the latter is used in case of alu32 and sync_linked_regs uses this to zext the result if known_reg has this flag. Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260204151741.2678118-2-puranjay@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
1 parent b282131 commit 7a433e5

3 files changed

Lines changed: 45 additions & 13 deletions

File tree

include/linux/bpf_verifier.h

Lines changed: 5 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -147,8 +147,12 @@ struct bpf_reg_state {
147147
* registers. Example:
148148
* r1 = r2; both will have r1->id == r2->id == N
149149
* r1 += 10; r1->id == N | BPF_ADD_CONST and r1->off == 10
150+
* r3 = r2; both will have r3->id == r2->id == N
151+
* w3 += 10; r3->id == N | BPF_ADD_CONST32 and r3->off == 10
150152
*/
151-
#define BPF_ADD_CONST (1U << 31)
153+
#define BPF_ADD_CONST64 (1U << 31)
154+
#define BPF_ADD_CONST32 (1U << 30)
155+
#define BPF_ADD_CONST (BPF_ADD_CONST64 | BPF_ADD_CONST32)
152156
u32 id;
153157
/* PTR_TO_SOCKET and PTR_TO_TCP_SOCK could be a ptr returned
154158
* from a pointer-cast helper, bpf_sk_fullsock() and

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

Lines changed: 39 additions & 11 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -16209,6 +16209,13 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
1620916209
verbose(env, "verifier internal error: no src_reg\n");
1621016210
return -EFAULT;
1621116211
}
16212+
/*
16213+
* For alu32 linked register tracking, we need to check dst_reg's
16214+
* umax_value before the ALU operation. After adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(),
16215+
* alu32 ops will have zero-extended the result, making umax_value <= U32_MAX.
16216+
*/
16217+
u64 dst_umax = dst_reg->umax_value;
16218+
1621216219
err = adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(env, insn, dst_reg, *src_reg);
1621316220
if (err)
1621416221
return err;
@@ -16218,26 +16225,44 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
1621816225
* r1 += 0x1
1621916226
* if r2 < 1000 goto ...
1622016227
* use r1 in memory access
16221-
* So for 64-bit alu remember constant delta between r2 and r1 and
16222-
* update r1 after 'if' condition.
16228+
* So remember constant delta between r2 and r1 and update r1 after
16229+
* 'if' condition.
1622316230
*/
1622416231
if (env->bpf_capable &&
16225-
BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_ADD && !alu32 &&
16226-
dst_reg->id && is_reg_const(src_reg, false)) {
16227-
u64 val = reg_const_value(src_reg, false);
16232+
(BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_ADD || BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_SUB) &&
16233+
dst_reg->id && is_reg_const(src_reg, alu32)) {
16234+
u64 val = reg_const_value(src_reg, alu32);
16235+
s32 off;
16236+
16237+
if (!alu32 && ((s64)val < S32_MIN || (s64)val > S32_MAX))
16238+
goto clear_id;
16239+
16240+
if (alu32 && (dst_umax > U32_MAX))
16241+
goto clear_id;
1622816242

16229-
if ((dst_reg->id & BPF_ADD_CONST) ||
16230-
/* prevent overflow in sync_linked_regs() later */
16231-
val > (u32)S32_MAX) {
16243+
off = (s32)val;
16244+
16245+
if (BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_SUB) {
16246+
/* Negating S32_MIN would overflow */
16247+
if (off == S32_MIN)
16248+
goto clear_id;
16249+
off = -off;
16250+
}
16251+
16252+
if (dst_reg->id & BPF_ADD_CONST) {
1623216253
/*
1623316254
* If the register already went through rX += val
1623416255
* we cannot accumulate another val into rx->off.
1623516256
*/
16257+
clear_id:
1623616258
dst_reg->off = 0;
1623716259
dst_reg->id = 0;
1623816260
} else {
16239-
dst_reg->id |= BPF_ADD_CONST;
16240-
dst_reg->off = val;
16261+
if (alu32)
16262+
dst_reg->id |= BPF_ADD_CONST32;
16263+
else
16264+
dst_reg->id |= BPF_ADD_CONST64;
16265+
dst_reg->off = off;
1624116266
}
1624216267
} else {
1624316268
/*
@@ -17334,7 +17359,7 @@ static void sync_linked_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_verifier_s
1733417359
u32 saved_id = reg->id;
1733517360

1733617361
fake_reg.type = SCALAR_VALUE;
17337-
__mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, (s32)reg->off - (s32)known_reg->off);
17362+
__mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, (s64)reg->off - (s64)known_reg->off);
1733817363

1733917364
/* reg = known_reg; reg += delta */
1734017365
copy_register_state(reg, known_reg);
@@ -17349,6 +17374,9 @@ static void sync_linked_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_verifier_s
1734917374
scalar32_min_max_add(reg, &fake_reg);
1735017375
scalar_min_max_add(reg, &fake_reg);
1735117376
reg->var_off = tnum_add(reg->var_off, fake_reg.var_off);
17377+
if (known_reg->id & BPF_ADD_CONST32)
17378+
zext_32_to_64(reg);
17379+
reg_bounds_sync(reg);
1735217380
}
1735317381
if (e->is_reg)
1735417382
mark_reg_scratched(env, e->regno);

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1477,7 +1477,7 @@ __naked void sub64_full_overflow(void)
14771477
SEC("socket")
14781478
__description("64-bit subtraction, partial overflow, result in unbounded reg")
14791479
__success __log_level(2)
1480-
__msg("3: (1f) r3 -= r2 {{.*}} R3=scalar()")
1480+
__msg("3: (1f) r3 -= r2 {{.*}} R3=scalar(id=1-1)")
14811481
__retval(0)
14821482
__naked void sub64_partial_overflow(void)
14831483
{

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)