Force checkpoint for long jmp hist #7971
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A specifically crafted program might trick verifier into growing very
long jump history within a single bpf_verifier_state instance.
Very long jump history makes mark_chain_precision() unreasonably slow,
especially in case if verifier processes a loop.
Mitigate this by forcing new state in is_state_visited() in case if
current state's jump history is too long.
Use same constant as in `skip_inf_loop_check`, but multiply it by
arbitrarily chosen value 2 to account for jump history containing not
only information about jumps, but also information about stack access.
For an example of problematic program consider the code below,
w/o this patch the example is processed by verifier for ~15 minutes,
before failing to allocate big-enough chunk for jmp_history.
0: r7 = *(u16 *)(r1 +0);"
1: r7 += 0x1ab064b9;"
2: if r7 & 0x702000 goto 1b;
3: r7 &= 0x1ee60e;"
4: r7 += r1;"
5: if r7 s> 0x37d2 goto +0;"
6: r0 = 0;"
7: exit;"
Perf profiling shows that most of the time is spent in
mark_chain_precision() ~95%.
The easiest way to explain why this program causes problems is to
apply the following patch:
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 0c216e71cec7..4b4823961abe 100644
\--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
\+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
\@@ -1926,7 +1926,7 @@ struct bpf_array {
};
};
-#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 1000000 /* yes. 1M insns */
+#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 256 /* yes. 1M insns */
#define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 33
/* Maximum number of loops for bpf_loop and bpf_iter_num.
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index f514247ba8ba..75e88be3bb3e 100644
\--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
\+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
\@@ -18024,8 +18024,13 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
skip_inf_loop_check:
if (!force_new_state &&
env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed < 20 &&
- env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed < 100)
+ env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed < 100) {
+ verbose(env, "is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at %d, %d jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is %d\n",
+ env->insn_idx,
+ env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed,
+ cur->jmp_history_cnt);
add_new_state = false;
+ }
goto miss;
}
/* If sl->state is a part of a loop and this loop's entry is a part of
\@@ -18142,6 +18147,9 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
if (!add_new_state)
return 0;
+ verbose(env, "is_state_visited: new checkpoint at %d, resetting env->jmps_processed\n",
+ env->insn_idx);
+
/* There were no equivalent states, remember the current one.
* Technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
* but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)
And observe verification log:
...
is_state_visited: new checkpoint at 5, resetting env->jmps_processed
5: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...)
5: (65) if r7 s> 0x37d2 goto pc+0 ; R7=ctx(...)
6: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
7: (95) exit
from 5 to 6: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...) R10=fp0
6: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...) R10=fp0
6: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
7: (95) exit
is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 1, 3 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 74
from 2 to 1: R1=ctx() R7_w=scalar(...) R10=fp0
1: R1=ctx() R7_w=scalar(...) R10=fp0
1: (07) r7 += 447767737
is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 2, 3 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 75
2: R7_w=scalar(...)
2: (45) if r7 & 0x702000 goto pc-2
... mark_precise 152 steps for r7 ...
2: R7_w=scalar(...)
is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 1, 4 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 75
1: (07) r7 += 447767737
is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 2, 4 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 76
2: R7_w=scalar(...)
2: (45) if r7 & 0x702000 goto pc-2
...
BPF program is too large. Processed 257 insn
The log output shows that checkpoint at label (1) is never created,
because it is suppressed by `skip_inf_loop_check` logic:
a. When 'if' at (2) is processed it pushes a state with insn_idx (1)
onto stack and proceeds to (3);
b. At (5) checkpoint is created, and this resets
env->{jmps,insns}_processed.
c. Verification proceeds and reaches `exit`;
d. State saved at step (a) is popped from stack and is_state_visited()
considers if checkpoint needs to be added, but because
env->{jmps,insns}_processed had been just reset at step (b)
the `skip_inf_loop_check` logic forces `add_new_state` to false.
e. Verifier proceeds with current state, which slowly accumulates
more and more entries in the jump history.
The accumulation of entries in the jump history is a problem because
of two factors:
- it eventually exhausts memory available for kmalloc() allocation;
- mark_chain_precision() traverses the jump history of a state,
meaning that if `r7` is marked precise, verifier would iterate
ever growing jump history until parent state boundary is reached.
(note: the log also shows a REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION warning
upon jset processing, but that's another bug to fix).
With this patch applied, the example above is rejected by verifier
under 1s of time, reaching 1M instructions limit.
The program is a simplified reproducer from syzbot report [1].
Previous discussion could be found at [2].
The patch does not cause any changes in verification performance,
when tested on selftests from veristat.cfg and cilium programs taken
from [3].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
[3] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium
Changelog:
v1 -> v2:
- moved patch to bpf tree;
- moved force_new_state variable initialization after declaration and
shortened the comment.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Reported-by: [email protected]
Fixes: 2589726 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops")
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
The test added is a simplified reproducer from syzbot report [1]. If verifier does not insert checkpoint somewhere inside the loop, verification of the program would take a very long time. This would happen because mark_chain_precision() for register r7 would constantly trace jump history of the loop back, processing many iterations for each mark_chain_precision() call. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf
bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_base
branch
8 times, most recently
from
7098520
to
7efdac4
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.