-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
libbpf: Implement BTFGen #15
Conversation
Master branch: 8cbf062 |
BTFGen needs to run the core relocation logic in order to understand what are the types involved in a given relocation. Currently bpf_core_apply_relo() calculates and **applies** a relocation to an instruction. Having both operations in the same function makes it difficult to only calculate the relocation without patching the instruction. This commit splits that logic in two different phases: (1) calculate the relocation and (2) patch the instruction. For the first phase bpf_core_apply_relo() is renamed to bpf_core_calc_relo_insn() who is now only on charge of calculating the relocation, the second phase uses the already existing bpf_core_patch_insn(). bpf_object__relocate_core() uses both of them and the BTFGen will use only bpf_core_calc_relo_insn(). Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Expose bpf_core_add_cands() and bpf_core_free_cands() to handle candidates list. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
This command is implemented under the "gen" command in bpftool and the syntax is the following: $ bpftool gen min_core_btf INPUT OUTPUT OBJECT [OBJECT...] INPUT is the file that contains all the BTF types for a kernel and OUTPUT is the path of the minimize BTF file that will be created with only the types needed by the objects. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
This commit implements the logic for the gen min_core_btf command. Specifically, it implements the following functions: - minimize_btf(): receives the path of a source and destination BTF files and a list of BPF objects. This function records the relocations for all objects and then generates the BTF file by calling btfgen_get_btf() (implemented in the following commit). - btfgen_record_obj(): loads the BTF and BTF.ext sections of the BPF objects and loops through all CO-RE relocations. It uses bpf_core_calc_relo_insn() from libbpf and passes the target spec to btfgen_record_reloc(), that calls one of the following functions depending on the relocation kind. - btfgen_record_field_relo(): uses the target specification to mark all the types that are involved in a field-based CO-RE relocation. In this case types resolved and marked recursively using btfgen_mark_type(). Only the struct and union members (and their types) involved in the relocation are marked to optimize the size of the generated BTF file. - btfgen_record_type_relo(): marks the types involved in a type-based CO-RE relocation. In this case no members for the struct and union types are marked as libbpf doesn't use them while performing this kind of relocation. Pointed types are marked as they are used by libbpf in this case. - btfgen_record_enumval_relo(): marks the whole enum type for enum-based relocations. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]>
Master branch: 8cbf062 |
The last part of the BTFGen algorithm is to create a new BTF object with all the types that were recorded in the previous steps. This function performs two different steps: 1. Add the types to the new BTF object by using btf__add_type(). Some special logic around struct and unions is implemented to only add the members that are really used in the field-based relocations. The type ID on the new and old BTF objects is stored on a map. 2. Fix all the type IDs on the new BTF object by using the IDs saved in the previous step. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]>
Add "min_core_btf" feature explanation and one example of how to use it to bpftool-gen man page. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]>
This commit reuses the core_reloc test to check if the BTF files generated with "bpftool gen min_core_btf" are correct. This introduces test_core_btfgen() that runs all the core_reloc tests, but this time the source BTF files are generated by using "bpftool gen min_core_btf". The goal of this test is to check that the generated files are usable, and not to check if the algorithm is creating an optimized BTF file. Signed-off-by: Mauricio Vásquez <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rafael David Tinoco <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Di Donato <[email protected]>
d084aae
to
e352dbe
Compare
Master branch: 477bb4c Pull request is NOT updated. Failed to apply https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=614721
conflict:
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=614721 irrelevant now. Closing PR. |
As explained in commits: 74b6d7d ("net: dsa: realtek: register the MDIO bus under devres") 5135e96 ("net: dsa: don't allocate the slave_mii_bus using devres") mdiobus_free() will panic when called from devm_mdiobus_free() <- devres_release_all() <- __device_release_driver(), and that mdiobus was not previously unregistered. The mv88e6xxx is an MDIO device, so the initial set of constraints that I thought would cause this (I2C or SPI buses which call ->remove on ->shutdown) do not apply. But there is one more which applies here. If the DSA master itself is on a bus that calls ->remove from ->shutdown (like dpaa2-eth, which is on the fsl-mc bus), there is a device link between the switch and the DSA master, and device_links_unbind_consumers() will unbind the Marvell switch driver on shutdown. systemd-shutdown[1]: Powering off. mv88e6085 0x0000000008b96000:00 sw_gl0: Link is Down fsl-mc dpbp.9: Removing from iommu group 7 fsl-mc dpbp.8: Removing from iommu group 7 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c:677! Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd-shutdow Not tainted 5.16.5-00040-gdc05f73788e5 #15 pc : mdiobus_free+0x44/0x50 lr : devm_mdiobus_free+0x10/0x20 Call trace: mdiobus_free+0x44/0x50 devm_mdiobus_free+0x10/0x20 devres_release_all+0xa0/0x100 __device_release_driver+0x190/0x220 device_release_driver_internal+0xac/0xb0 device_links_unbind_consumers+0xd4/0x100 __device_release_driver+0x4c/0x220 device_release_driver_internal+0xac/0xb0 device_links_unbind_consumers+0xd4/0x100 __device_release_driver+0x94/0x220 device_release_driver+0x28/0x40 bus_remove_device+0x118/0x124 device_del+0x174/0x420 fsl_mc_device_remove+0x24/0x40 __fsl_mc_device_remove+0xc/0x20 device_for_each_child+0x58/0xa0 dprc_remove+0x90/0xb0 fsl_mc_driver_remove+0x20/0x5c __device_release_driver+0x21c/0x220 device_release_driver+0x28/0x40 bus_remove_device+0x118/0x124 device_del+0x174/0x420 fsl_mc_bus_remove+0x80/0x100 fsl_mc_bus_shutdown+0xc/0x1c platform_shutdown+0x20/0x30 device_shutdown+0x154/0x330 kernel_power_off+0x34/0x6c __do_sys_reboot+0x15c/0x250 __arm64_sys_reboot+0x20/0x30 invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x4c/0xe0 do_el0_svc+0x4c/0x150 el0_svc+0x24/0xb0 el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa8/0xb0 el0t_64_sync+0x178/0x17c So the same treatment must be applied to all DSA switch drivers, which is: either use devres for both the mdiobus allocation and registration, or don't use devres at all. The Marvell driver already has a good structure for mdiobus removal, so just plug in mdiobus_free and get rid of devres. Fixes: ac3a68d ("net: phy: don't abuse devres in devm_mdiobus_register()") Reported-by: Rafael Richter <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]> Tested-by: Daniel Klauer <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
When bringing down the netdevice or system shutdown, a panic can be triggered while accessing the sysfs path because the device is already removed. [ 755.549084] mlx5_core 0000:12:00.1: Shutdown was called [ 756.404455] mlx5_core 0000:12:00.0: Shutdown was called ... [ 757.937260] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null) [ 758.031397] IP: [<ffffffff8ee11acb>] dma_pool_alloc+0x1ab/0x280 crash> bt ... PID: 12649 TASK: ffff8924108f2100 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "amsd" ... #9 [ffff89240e1a38b0] page_fault at ffffffff8f38c778 [exception RIP: dma_pool_alloc+0x1ab] RIP: ffffffff8ee11acb RSP: ffff89240e1a3968 RFLAGS: 00010046 RAX: 0000000000000246 RBX: ffff89243d874100 RCX: 0000000000001000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000246 RDI: ffff89243d874090 RBP: ffff89240e1a39c0 R8: 000000000001f080 R9: ffff8905ffc03c00 R10: ffffffffc04680d4 R11: ffffffff8edde9fd R12: 00000000000080d0 R13: ffff89243d874090 R14: ffff89243d874080 R15: 0000000000000000 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 #10 [ffff89240e1a39c8] mlx5_alloc_cmd_msg at ffffffffc04680f3 [mlx5_core] #11 [ffff89240e1a3a18] cmd_exec at ffffffffc046ad62 [mlx5_core] #12 [ffff89240e1a3ab8] mlx5_cmd_exec at ffffffffc046b4fb [mlx5_core] #13 [ffff89240e1a3ae8] mlx5_core_access_reg at ffffffffc0475434 [mlx5_core] #14 [ffff89240e1a3b40] mlx5e_get_fec_caps at ffffffffc04a7348 [mlx5_core] #15 [ffff89240e1a3bb0] get_fec_supported_advertised at ffffffffc04992bf [mlx5_core] #16 [ffff89240e1a3c08] mlx5e_get_link_ksettings at ffffffffc049ab36 [mlx5_core] #17 [ffff89240e1a3ce8] __ethtool_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff8f25db46 #18 [ffff89240e1a3d48] speed_show at ffffffff8f277208 #19 [ffff89240e1a3dd8] dev_attr_show at ffffffff8f0b70e3 #20 [ffff89240e1a3df8] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffff8eedbedf #21 [ffff89240e1a3e18] kernfs_seq_show at ffffffff8eeda596 #22 [ffff89240e1a3e28] seq_read at ffffffff8ee76d10 #23 [ffff89240e1a3e98] kernfs_fop_read at ffffffff8eedaef5 #24 [ffff89240e1a3ed8] vfs_read at ffffffff8ee4e3ff #25 [ffff89240e1a3f08] sys_read at ffffffff8ee4f27f #26 [ffff89240e1a3f50] system_call_fastpath at ffffffff8f395f92 crash> net_device.state ffff89443b0c0000 state = 0x5 (__LINK_STATE_START| __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER) To prevent this scenario, we also make sure that the netdevice is present. Signed-off-by: suresh kumar <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
In remove_phb_dynamic() we use &phb->io_resource, after we've called device_unregister(&host_bridge->dev). But the unregister may have freed phb, because pcibios_free_controller_deferred() is the release function for the host_bridge. If there are no outstanding references when we call device_unregister() then phb will be freed out from under us. This has gone mainly unnoticed, but with slub_debug and page_poison enabled it can lead to a crash: PID: 7574 TASK: c0000000d492cb80 CPU: 13 COMMAND: "drmgr" #0 [c0000000e4f075a0] crash_kexec at c00000000027d7dc #1 [c0000000e4f075d0] oops_end at c000000000029608 #2 [c0000000e4f07650] __bad_page_fault at c0000000000904b4 #3 [c0000000e4f076c0] do_bad_slb_fault at c00000000009a5a8 #4 [c0000000e4f076f0] data_access_slb_common_virt at c000000000008b30 Data SLB Access [380] exception frame: R0: c000000000167250 R1: c0000000e4f07a00 R2: c000000002a46100 R3: c000000002b39ce8 R4: 00000000000000c0 R5: 00000000000000a9 R6: 3894674d000000c0 R7: 0000000000000000 R8: 00000000000000ff R9: 0000000000000100 R10: 6b6b6b6b6b6b6b6b R11: 0000000000008000 R12: c00000000023da80 R13: c0000009ffd38b00 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000011c87f0f0 R16: 0000000000000006 R17: 0000000000000003 R18: 0000000000000002 R19: 0000000000000004 R20: 0000000000000005 R21: 000000011c87ede8 R22: 000000011c87c5a8 R23: 000000011c87d3a0 R24: 0000000000000000 R25: 0000000000000001 R26: c0000000e4f07cc8 R27: c00000004d1cc400 R28: c0080000031d00e8 R29: c00000004d23d800 R30: c00000004d1d2400 R31: c00000004d1d2540 NIP: c000000000167258 MSR: 8000000000009033 OR3: c000000000e9f474 CTR: 0000000000000000 LR: c000000000167250 XER: 0000000020040003 CCR: 0000000024088420 MQ: 0000000000000000 DAR: 6b6b6b6b6b6b6ba3 DSISR: c0000000e4f07920 Syscall Result: fffffffffffffff2 [NIP : release_resource+56] [LR : release_resource+48] #5 [c0000000e4f07a00] release_resource at c000000000167258 (unreliable) #6 [c0000000e4f07a30] remove_phb_dynamic at c000000000105648 #7 [c0000000e4f07ab0] dlpar_remove_slot at c0080000031a09e8 [rpadlpar_io] #8 [c0000000e4f07b50] remove_slot_store at c0080000031a0b9c [rpadlpar_io] #9 [c0000000e4f07be0] kobj_attr_store at c000000000817d8c #10 [c0000000e4f07c00] sysfs_kf_write at c00000000063e504 #11 [c0000000e4f07c20] kernfs_fop_write_iter at c00000000063d868 #12 [c0000000e4f07c70] new_sync_write at c00000000054339c #13 [c0000000e4f07d10] vfs_write at c000000000546624 #14 [c0000000e4f07d60] ksys_write at c0000000005469f4 #15 [c0000000e4f07db0] system_call_exception at c000000000030840 #16 [c0000000e4f07e10] system_call_vectored_common at c00000000000c168 To avoid it, we can take a reference to the host_bridge->dev until we're done using phb. Then when we drop the reference the phb will be freed. Fixes: 2dd9c11 ("powerpc/pseries: use pci_host_bridge.release_fn() to kfree(phb)") Reported-by: David Dai <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> Tested-by: Sachin Sant <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
commit 0622cab ("bonding: fix 802.3ad aggregator reselection"), resolve case, when there is several aggregation groups in the same bond. bond_3ad_unbind_slave will invalidate (clear) aggregator when __agg_active_ports return zero. So, ad_clear_agg can be executed even, when num_of_ports!=0. Than bond_3ad_unbind_slave can be executed again for, previously cleared aggregator. NOTE: at this time bond_3ad_unbind_slave will not update slave ports list, because lag_ports==NULL. So, here we got slave ports, pointing to freed aggregator memory. Fix with checking actual number of ports in group (as was before commit 0622cab ("bonding: fix 802.3ad aggregator reselection") ), before ad_clear_agg(). The KASAN logs are as follows: [ 767.617392] ================================================================== [ 767.630776] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x13dc/0x1470 [ 767.638764] Read of size 2 at addr ffff00011ba9d430 by task kworker/u8:7/767 [ 767.647361] CPU: 3 PID: 767 Comm: kworker/u8:7 Tainted: G O 5.15.11 #15 [ 767.655329] Hardware name: DNI AmazonGo1 A7040 board (DT) [ 767.660760] Workqueue: lacp_1 bond_3ad_state_machine_handler [ 767.666468] Call trace: [ 767.668930] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0 [ 767.672625] show_stack+0x24/0x30 [ 767.675965] dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x84 [ 767.679659] print_address_description.constprop.0+0x74/0x2b8 [ 767.685451] kasan_report+0x1f0/0x260 [ 767.689148] __asan_load2+0x94/0xd0 [ 767.692667] bond_3ad_state_machine_handler+0x13dc/0x1470 Fixes: 0622cab ("bonding: fix 802.3ad aggregator reselection") Co-developed-by: Maksym Glubokiy <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Maksym Glubokiy <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yevhen Orlov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
ASAN reports an use-after-free in btf_dump_name_dups: ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0xffff927006db at pc 0xaaaab5dfb618 bp 0xffffdd89b890 sp 0xffffdd89b928 READ of size 2 at 0xffff927006db thread T0 #0 0xaaaab5dfb614 in __interceptor_strcmp.part.0 (test_progs+0x21b614) #1 0xaaaab635f144 in str_equal_fn tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:127 #2 0xaaaab635e3e0 in hashmap_find_entry tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:143 #3 0xaaaab635e72c in hashmap__find tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:212 #4 0xaaaab6362258 in btf_dump_name_dups tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1525 #5 0xaaaab636240c in btf_dump_resolve_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1552 #6 0xaaaab6362598 in btf_dump_type_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1567 #7 0xaaaab6360b48 in btf_dump_emit_struct_def tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:912 #8 0xaaaab6360630 in btf_dump_emit_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:798 #9 0xaaaab635f720 in btf_dump__dump_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:282 #10 0xaaaab608523c in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:236 #11 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #12 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #13 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #14 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #15 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) 0xffff927006db is located 11 bytes inside of 16-byte region [0xffff927006d0,0xffff927006e0) freed by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353e10 in btf__add_field tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2032 #7 0xaaaab6084fcc in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:232 #8 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #9 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #10 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #11 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #12 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) previously allocated by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353ff0 in btf_add_enum_common tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2070 #7 0xaaaab6354080 in btf__add_enum tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2102 #8 0xaaaab6082f50 in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:162 #9 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #10 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #11 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #12 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) The reason is that the key stored in hash table name_map is a string address, and the string memory is allocated by realloc() function, when the memory is resized by realloc() later, the old memory may be freed, so the address stored in name_map references to a freed memory, causing use-after-free. Fix it by storing duplicated string address in name_map. Fixes: 351131b ("libbpf: add btf_dump API for BTF-to-C conversion") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
ASAN reports an use-after-free in btf_dump_name_dups: ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0xffff927006db at pc 0xaaaab5dfb618 bp 0xffffdd89b890 sp 0xffffdd89b928 READ of size 2 at 0xffff927006db thread T0 #0 0xaaaab5dfb614 in __interceptor_strcmp.part.0 (test_progs+0x21b614) #1 0xaaaab635f144 in str_equal_fn tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:127 #2 0xaaaab635e3e0 in hashmap_find_entry tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:143 #3 0xaaaab635e72c in hashmap__find tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:212 #4 0xaaaab6362258 in btf_dump_name_dups tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1525 #5 0xaaaab636240c in btf_dump_resolve_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1552 #6 0xaaaab6362598 in btf_dump_type_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1567 #7 0xaaaab6360b48 in btf_dump_emit_struct_def tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:912 #8 0xaaaab6360630 in btf_dump_emit_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:798 #9 0xaaaab635f720 in btf_dump__dump_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:282 #10 0xaaaab608523c in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:236 #11 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #12 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #13 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #14 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #15 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) 0xffff927006db is located 11 bytes inside of 16-byte region [0xffff927006d0,0xffff927006e0) freed by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353e10 in btf__add_field tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2032 #7 0xaaaab6084fcc in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:232 #8 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #9 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #10 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #11 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #12 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) previously allocated by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353ff0 in btf_add_enum_common tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2070 #7 0xaaaab6354080 in btf__add_enum tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2102 #8 0xaaaab6082f50 in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:162 #9 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #10 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #11 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #12 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) The reason is that the key stored in hash table name_map is a string address, and the string memory is allocated by realloc() function, when the memory is resized by realloc() later, the old memory may be freed, so the address stored in name_map references to a freed memory, causing use-after-free. Fix it by storing duplicated string address in name_map. Fixes: 351131b ("libbpf: add btf_dump API for BTF-to-C conversion") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
ASAN reports an use-after-free in btf_dump_name_dups: ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0xffff927006db at pc 0xaaaab5dfb618 bp 0xffffdd89b890 sp 0xffffdd89b928 READ of size 2 at 0xffff927006db thread T0 #0 0xaaaab5dfb614 in __interceptor_strcmp.part.0 (test_progs+0x21b614) #1 0xaaaab635f144 in str_equal_fn tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:127 #2 0xaaaab635e3e0 in hashmap_find_entry tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:143 #3 0xaaaab635e72c in hashmap__find tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:212 #4 0xaaaab6362258 in btf_dump_name_dups tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1525 #5 0xaaaab636240c in btf_dump_resolve_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1552 #6 0xaaaab6362598 in btf_dump_type_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1567 #7 0xaaaab6360b48 in btf_dump_emit_struct_def tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:912 #8 0xaaaab6360630 in btf_dump_emit_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:798 #9 0xaaaab635f720 in btf_dump__dump_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:282 #10 0xaaaab608523c in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:236 #11 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #12 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #13 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #14 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #15 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) 0xffff927006db is located 11 bytes inside of 16-byte region [0xffff927006d0,0xffff927006e0) freed by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353e10 in btf__add_field tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2032 #7 0xaaaab6084fcc in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:232 #8 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #9 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #10 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #11 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #12 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) previously allocated by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353ff0 in btf_add_enum_common tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2070 #7 0xaaaab6354080 in btf__add_enum tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2102 #8 0xaaaab6082f50 in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:162 #9 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #10 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #11 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #12 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) The reason is that the key stored in hash table name_map is a string address, and the string memory is allocated by realloc() function, when the memory is resized by realloc() later, the old memory may be freed, so the address stored in name_map references to a freed memory, causing use-after-free. Fix it by storing duplicated string address in name_map. Fixes: 919d2b1 ("libbpf: Allow modification of BTF and add btf__add_str API") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
ASAN reports an use-after-free in btf_dump_name_dups: ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0xffff927006db at pc 0xaaaab5dfb618 bp 0xffffdd89b890 sp 0xffffdd89b928 READ of size 2 at 0xffff927006db thread T0 #0 0xaaaab5dfb614 in __interceptor_strcmp.part.0 (test_progs+0x21b614) #1 0xaaaab635f144 in str_equal_fn tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:127 #2 0xaaaab635e3e0 in hashmap_find_entry tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:143 #3 0xaaaab635e72c in hashmap__find tools/lib/bpf/hashmap.c:212 #4 0xaaaab6362258 in btf_dump_name_dups tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1525 #5 0xaaaab636240c in btf_dump_resolve_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1552 #6 0xaaaab6362598 in btf_dump_type_name tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:1567 #7 0xaaaab6360b48 in btf_dump_emit_struct_def tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:912 #8 0xaaaab6360630 in btf_dump_emit_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:798 #9 0xaaaab635f720 in btf_dump__dump_type tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c:282 #10 0xaaaab608523c in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:236 #11 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #12 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #13 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #14 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #15 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) 0xffff927006db is located 11 bytes inside of 16-byte region [0xffff927006d0,0xffff927006e0) freed by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353e10 in btf__add_field tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2032 #7 0xaaaab6084fcc in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:232 #8 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #9 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #10 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #11 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #12 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) previously allocated by thread T0 here: #0 0xaaaab5e2c7c4 in realloc (test_progs+0x24c7c4) #1 0xaaaab634f4a0 in libbpf_reallocarray tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h:191 #2 0xaaaab634f840 in libbpf_add_mem tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:163 #3 0xaaaab636643c in strset_add_str_mem tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:106 #4 0xaaaab6366560 in strset__add_str tools/lib/bpf/strset.c:157 #5 0xaaaab6352d70 in btf__add_str tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:1519 #6 0xaaaab6353ff0 in btf_add_enum_common tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2070 #7 0xaaaab6354080 in btf__add_enum tools/lib/bpf/btf.c:2102 #8 0xaaaab6082f50 in test_btf_dump_incremental tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:162 #9 0xaaaab6097530 in test_btf_dump tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c:875 #10 0xaaaab6314ed0 in run_one_test tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1062 #11 0xaaaab631a0a8 in main tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c:1697 #12 0xffff9676d214 in __libc_start_main ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0xaaaab5d65990 (test_progs+0x185990) The reason is that the key stored in hash table name_map is a string address, and the string memory is allocated by realloc() function, when the memory is resized by realloc() later, the old memory may be freed, so the address stored in name_map references to a freed memory, causing use-after-free. Fix it by storing duplicated string address in name_map. Fixes: 919d2b1 ("libbpf: Allow modification of BTF and add btf__add_str API") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is {S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX. Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to signed extension load. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is in range of [{S32/S16/S8}_MIN, 0) and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count failed with -mcpu=v4. The following are the details: 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420 0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 ; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422 1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) 3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424 4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0 6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8 8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0 9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) 10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2 11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2 12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427 13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2 14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2 15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2 ; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429 20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2 21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2 23: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The source code: 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; } The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'. The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value. Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0. Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff]. After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff, then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and smax = smax32. This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same as 32-bit smin32/smax32. With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range: from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2 Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
A sysfs reader can race with a device reset or removal, attempting to read device state when the device is not actually present. eg: [exception RIP: qed_get_current_link+17] #8 [ffffb9e4f2907c48] qede_get_link_ksettings at ffffffffc07a994a [qede] #9 [ffffb9e4f2907cd8] __rh_call_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff992b01a3 #10 [ffffb9e4f2907d38] __ethtool_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff992b04e4 #11 [ffffb9e4f2907d90] duplex_show at ffffffff99260300 #12 [ffffb9e4f2907e38] dev_attr_show at ffffffff9905a01c #13 [ffffb9e4f2907e50] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffff98e0145b #14 [ffffb9e4f2907e68] seq_read at ffffffff98d902e3 #15 [ffffb9e4f2907ec8] vfs_read at ffffffff98d657d1 #16 [ffffb9e4f2907f00] ksys_read at ffffffff98d65c3f #17 [ffffb9e4f2907f38] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff98a052fb crash> struct net_device.state ffff9a9d21336000 state = 5, state 5 is __LINK_STATE_START (0b1) and __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER (0b100). The device is not present, note lack of __LINK_STATE_PRESENT (0b10). This is the same sort of panic as observed in commit 4224cfd ("net-sysfs: add check for netdevice being present to speed_show"). There are many other callers of __ethtool_get_link_ksettings() which don't have a device presence check. Move this check into ethtool to protect all callers. Fixes: d519e17 ("net: export device speed and duplex via sysfs") Fixes: 4224cfd ("net-sysfs: add check for netdevice being present to speed_show") Signed-off-by: Jamie Bainbridge <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/8bae218864beaa44ed01628140475b9bf641c5b0.1724393671.git.jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
…rnel/git/netfilter/nf-next Pablo Neira Ayuso says: ==================== Netfilter updates for net-next The following patchset contains Netfilter updates for net-next: Patch #1 adds ctnetlink support for kernel side filtering for deletions, from Changliang Wu. Patch #2 updates nft_counter support to Use u64_stats_t, from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior. Patch #3 uses kmemdup_array() in all xtables frontends, from Yan Zhen. Patch #4 is a oneliner to use ERR_CAST() in nf_conntrack instead opencoded casting, from Shen Lichuan. Patch #5 removes unused argument in nftables .validate interface, from Florian Westphal. Patch #6 is a oneliner to correct a typo in nftables kdoc, from Simon Horman. Patch #7 fixes missing kdoc in nftables, also from Simon. Patch #8 updates nftables to handle timeout less than CONFIG_HZ. Patch #9 rejects element expiration if timeout is zero, otherwise it is silently ignored. Patch #10 disallows element expiration larger than timeout. Patch #11 removes unnecessary READ_ONCE annotation while mutex is held. Patch #12 adds missing READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE annotation in dynset. Patch #13 annotates data-races around element expiration. Patch #14 allocates timeout and expiration in one single set element extension, they are tighly couple, no reason to keep them separated anymore. Patch #15 updates nftables to interpret zero timeout element as never times out. Note that it is already possible to declare sets with elements that never time out but this generalizes to all kind of set with timeouts. Patch #16 supports for element timeout and expiration updates. * tag 'nf-next-24-09-06' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netfilter/nf-next: netfilter: nf_tables: set element timeout update support netfilter: nf_tables: zero timeout means element never times out netfilter: nf_tables: consolidate timeout extension for elements netfilter: nf_tables: annotate data-races around element expiration netfilter: nft_dynset: annotate data-races around set timeout netfilter: nf_tables: remove annotation to access set timeout while holding lock netfilter: nf_tables: reject expiration higher than timeout netfilter: nf_tables: reject element expiration with no timeout netfilter: nf_tables: elements with timeout below CONFIG_HZ never expire netfilter: nf_tables: Add missing Kernel doc netfilter: nf_tables: Correct spelling in nf_tables.h netfilter: nf_tables: drop unused 3rd argument from validate callback ops netfilter: conntrack: Convert to use ERR_CAST() netfilter: Use kmemdup_array instead of kmemdup for multiple allocation netfilter: nft_counter: Use u64_stats_t for statistic. netfilter: ctnetlink: support CTA_FILTER for flush ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
iter_finish_branch_entry() doesn't put the branch_info from/to map elements creating memory leaks. This can be seen with: ``` $ perf record -e cycles -b perf test -w noploop $ perf report -D ... Direct leak of 984344 byte(s) in 123043 object(s) allocated from: #0 0x7fb2654f3bd7 in malloc libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:69 #1 0x564d3400d10b in map__get util/map.h:186 #2 0x564d3400d10b in ip__resolve_ams util/machine.c:1981 #3 0x564d34014d81 in sample__resolve_bstack util/machine.c:2151 #4 0x564d34094790 in iter_prepare_branch_entry util/hist.c:898 #5 0x564d34098fa4 in hist_entry_iter__add util/hist.c:1238 #6 0x564d33d1f0c7 in process_sample_event tools/perf/builtin-report.c:334 #7 0x564d34031eb7 in perf_session__deliver_event util/session.c:1655 #8 0x564d3403ba52 in do_flush util/ordered-events.c:245 #9 0x564d3403ba52 in __ordered_events__flush util/ordered-events.c:324 #10 0x564d3402d32e in perf_session__process_user_event util/session.c:1708 #11 0x564d34032480 in perf_session__process_event util/session.c:1877 #12 0x564d340336ad in reader__read_event util/session.c:2399 #13 0x564d34033fdc in reader__process_events util/session.c:2448 #14 0x564d34033fdc in __perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2495 #15 0x564d34033fdc in perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2661 #16 0x564d33d27113 in __cmd_report tools/perf/builtin-report.c:1065 #17 0x564d33d27113 in cmd_report tools/perf/builtin-report.c:1805 #18 0x564d33e0ccb7 in run_builtin tools/perf/perf.c:350 #19 0x564d33e0d45e in handle_internal_command tools/perf/perf.c:403 #20 0x564d33cdd827 in run_argv tools/perf/perf.c:447 #21 0x564d33cdd827 in main tools/perf/perf.c:561 ... ``` Clearing up the map_symbols properly creates maps reference count issues so resolve those. Resolving this issue doesn't improve peak heap consumption for the test above. Committer testing: $ sudo dnf install libasan $ make -k CORESIGHT=1 EXTRA_CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" CC=clang O=/tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ -C tools/perf install-bin Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <[email protected]> Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]> Cc: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Sun Haiyong <[email protected]> Cc: Yanteng Si <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
The fields in the hist_entry are filled on-demand which means they only have meaningful values when relevant sort keys are used. So if neither of 'dso' nor 'sym' sort keys are used, the map/symbols in the hist entry can be garbage. So it shouldn't access it unconditionally. I got a segfault, when I wanted to see cgroup profiles. $ sudo perf record -a --all-cgroups --synth=cgroup true $ sudo perf report -s cgroup Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00005555557a8d90 in map__dso (map=0x0) at util/map.h:48 48 return RC_CHK_ACCESS(map)->dso; (gdb) bt #0 0x00005555557a8d90 in map__dso (map=0x0) at util/map.h:48 #1 0x00005555557aa39b in map__load (map=0x0) at util/map.c:344 #2 0x00005555557aa592 in map__find_symbol (map=0x0, addr=140736115941088) at util/map.c:385 #3 0x00005555557ef000 in hists__findnew_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, entry=0x7fffffffa4c0, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sample_self=true) at util/hist.c:644 #4 0x00005555557ef61c in __hists__add_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sym_parent=0x0, bi=0x0, mi=0x0, ki=0x0, block_info=0x0, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, sample_self=true, ops=0x0) at util/hist.c:761 #5 0x00005555557ef71f in hists__add_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sym_parent=0x0, bi=0x0, mi=0x0, ki=0x0, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, sample_self=true) at util/hist.c:779 #6 0x00005555557f00fb in iter_add_single_normal_entry (iter=0x7fffffffa900, al=0x7fffffffa8c0) at util/hist.c:1015 #7 0x00005555557f09a7 in hist_entry_iter__add (iter=0x7fffffffa900, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, max_stack_depth=127, arg=0x7fffffffbce0) at util/hist.c:1260 #8 0x00005555555ba7ce in process_sample_event (tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, evsel=0x555556039ad0, machine=0x5555560388e8) at builtin-report.c:334 #9 0x00005555557b30c8 in evlist__deliver_sample (evlist=0x555556039010, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, evsel=0x555556039ad0, machine=0x5555560388e8) at util/session.c:1232 #10 0x00005555557b32bc in machines__deliver_event (machines=0x5555560388e8, evlist=0x555556039010, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, file_offset=110888, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1271 #11 0x00005555557b3848 in perf_session__deliver_event (session=0x5555560386d0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, file_offset=110888, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1354 #12 0x00005555557affaf in ordered_events__deliver_event (oe=0x555556038e60, event=0x555556135aa0) at util/session.c:132 #13 0x00005555557bb605 in do_flush (oe=0x555556038e60, show_progress=false) at util/ordered-events.c:245 #14 0x00005555557bb95c in __ordered_events__flush (oe=0x555556038e60, how=OE_FLUSH__ROUND, timestamp=0) at util/ordered-events.c:324 #15 0x00005555557bba46 in ordered_events__flush (oe=0x555556038e60, how=OE_FLUSH__ROUND) at util/ordered-events.c:342 #16 0x00005555557b1b3b in perf_event__process_finished_round (tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c15bb8, oe=0x555556038e60) at util/session.c:780 #17 0x00005555557b3b27 in perf_session__process_user_event (session=0x5555560386d0, event=0x7ffff7c15bb8, file_offset=117688, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1406 As you can see the entry->ms.map was NULL even if he->ms.map has a value. This is because 'sym' sort key is not given, so it cannot assume whether he->ms.sym and entry->ms.sym is the same. I only checked the 'sym' sort key here as it implies 'dso' behavior (so maps are the same). Fixes: ac01c8c ("perf hist: Update hist symbol when updating maps") Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]> Cc: Ian Rogers <[email protected]> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> Cc: Kan Liang <[email protected]> Cc: Matt Fleming <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
Daniel Machon says: ==================== net: sparx5: prepare for lan969x switch driver == Description: This series is the first of a multi-part series, that prepares and adds support for the new lan969x switch driver. The upstreaming efforts is split into multiple series (might change a bit as we go along): 1) Prepare the Sparx5 driver for lan969x (this series) 2) Add support lan969x (same basic features as Sparx5 provides + RGMII, excl. FDMA and VCAP) 3) Add support for lan969x FDMA 4) Add support for lan969x VCAP == Lan969x in short: The lan969x Ethernet switch family [1] provides a rich set of switching features and port configurations (up to 30 ports) from 10Mbps to 10Gbps, with support for RGMII, SGMII, QSGMII, USGMII, and USXGMII, ideal for industrial & process automation infrastructure applications, transport, grid automation, power substation automation, and ring & intra-ring topologies. The LAN969x family is hardware and software compatible and scalable supporting 46Gbps to 102Gbps switch bandwidths. == Preparing Sparx5 for lan969x: The lan969x switch chip reuses many of the IP's of the Sparx5 switch chip, therefore it has been decided to add support through the existing Sparx5 driver, in order to avoid a bunch of duplicate code. However, in order to reuse the Sparx5 switch driver, we have to introduce some mechanisms to handle the chip differences that are there. These mechanisms are: - Platform match data to contain all the differences that needs to be handled (constants, ops etc.) - Register macro indirection layer so that we can reuse the existing register macros. - Function for branching out on platform type where required. In some places we ops out functions and in other places we branch on the chip type. Exactly when we choose one over the other, is an estimate in each case. After this series is applied, the Sparx5 driver will be prepared for lan969x and still function exactly as before. == Patch breakdown: Patch #1 adds private match data Patch #2 adds register macro indirection layer Patch #3-#4 does some preparation work Patch #5-#7 adds chip constants and updates the code to use them Patch #8-#13 adds and uses ops for handling functions differently on the two platforms. Patch #14 adds and uses a macro for branching out on the chip type. Patch #15 (NEW) redefines macros for internal ports and PGID's. [1] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/lan9698 To: David S. Miller <[email protected]> To: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> To: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> To: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> To: Lars Povlsen <[email protected]> To: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]> To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: Richard Cochran <[email protected]> To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <[email protected]> ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241004-b4-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-v2-0-d3290f581663@microchip.com Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
Daniel Machon says: ==================== net: sparx5: add support for lan969x switch device == Description: This series is the second of a multi-part series, that prepares and adds support for the new lan969x switch driver. The upstreaming efforts is split into multiple series (might change a bit as we go along): 1) Prepare the Sparx5 driver for lan969x (merged) --> 2) add support lan969x (same basic features as Sparx5 provides excl. FDMA and VCAP). 3) Add support for lan969x VCAP, FDMA and RGMII == Lan969x in short: The lan969x Ethernet switch family [1] provides a rich set of switching features and port configurations (up to 30 ports) from 10Mbps to 10Gbps, with support for RGMII, SGMII, QSGMII, USGMII, and USXGMII, ideal for industrial & process automation infrastructure applications, transport, grid automation, power substation automation, and ring & intra-ring topologies. The LAN969x family is hardware and software compatible and scalable supporting 46Gbps to 102Gbps switch bandwidths. == Preparing Sparx5 for lan969x: The main preparation work for lan969x has already been merged [1]. After this series is applied, lan969x will have the same functionality as Sparx5, except for VCAP and FDMA support. QoS features that requires the VCAP (e.g. PSFP, port mirroring) will obviously not work until VCAP support is added later. == Patch breakdown: Patch #1-#4 do some preparation work for lan969x Patch #5 adds new registers required by lan969x Patch #6 adds initial match data for all lan969x targets Patch #7 defines the lan969x register differences Patch #8 adds lan969x constants to match data Patch #9 adds some lan969x ops in bulk Patch #10 adds PTP function to ops Patch #11 adds lan969x_calendar.c for calculating the calendar Patch #12 makes additional use of the is_sparx5() macro to branch out in certain places. Patch #13 documents lan969x in the dt-bindings Patch #14 adds lan969x compatible string to sparx5 driver Patch #15 introduces new concept of per-target features [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241004-b4-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-v2-0-d3290f581663@microchip.com/ v1: https://lore.kernel.org/20241021-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-2-v1-0-c8c49ef21e0f@microchip.com ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241024-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-2-v2-0-a0b5fae88a0f@microchip.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
KASAN reports an out of bounds read: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in __kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36 BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission+0x394/0x410 security/keys/permission.c:54 Read of size 4 at addr ffff88813c3ab618 by task stress-ng/4362 CPU: 2 PID: 4362 Comm: stress-ng Not tainted 5.10.0-14930-gafbffd6c3ede #15 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:82 [inline] dump_stack+0x107/0x167 lib/dump_stack.c:123 print_address_description.constprop.0+0x19/0x170 mm/kasan/report.c:400 __kasan_report.cold+0x6c/0x84 mm/kasan/report.c:560 kasan_report+0x3a/0x50 mm/kasan/report.c:585 __kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36 [inline] uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline] key_task_permission+0x394/0x410 security/keys/permission.c:54 search_nested_keyrings+0x90e/0xe90 security/keys/keyring.c:793 This issue was also reported by syzbot. It can be reproduced by following these steps(more details [1]): 1. Obtain more than 32 inputs that have similar hashes, which ends with the pattern '0xxxxxxxe6'. 2. Reboot and add the keys obtained in step 1. The reproducer demonstrates how this issue happened: 1. In the search_nested_keyrings function, when it iterates through the slots in a node(below tag ascend_to_node), if the slot pointer is meta and node->back_pointer != NULL(it means a root), it will proceed to descend_to_node. However, there is an exception. If node is the root, and one of the slots points to a shortcut, it will be treated as a keyring. 2. Whether the ptr is keyring decided by keyring_ptr_is_keyring function. However, KEYRING_PTR_SUBTYPE is 0x2UL, the same as ASSOC_ARRAY_PTR_SUBTYPE_MASK. 3. When 32 keys with the similar hashes are added to the tree, the ROOT has keys with hashes that are not similar (e.g. slot 0) and it splits NODE A without using a shortcut. When NODE A is filled with keys that all hashes are xxe6, the keys are similar, NODE A will split with a shortcut. Finally, it forms the tree as shown below, where slot 6 points to a shortcut. NODE A +------>+---+ ROOT | | 0 | xxe6 +---+ | +---+ xxxx | 0 | shortcut : : xxe6 +---+ | +---+ xxe6 : : | | | xxe6 +---+ | +---+ | 6 |---+ : : xxe6 +---+ +---+ xxe6 : : | f | xxe6 +---+ +---+ xxe6 | f | +---+ 4. As mentioned above, If a slot(slot 6) of the root points to a shortcut, it may be mistakenly transferred to a key*, leading to a read out-of-bounds read. To fix this issue, one should jump to descend_to_node if the ptr is a shortcut, regardless of whether the node is root or not. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/[email protected]/ [jarkko: tweaked the commit message a bit to have an appropriate closes tag.] Fixes: b2a4df2 ("KEYS: Expand the capacity of a keyring") Reported-by: [email protected] Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/ Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
Shinichiro reported the following use-after free that sometimes is happening in our CI system when running fstests' btrfs/284 on a TCMU runner device: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in lock_release+0x708/0x780 Read of size 8 at addr ffff888106a83f18 by task kworker/u80:6/219 CPU: 8 UID: 0 PID: 219 Comm: kworker/u80:6 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc6-kts+ #15 Hardware name: Supermicro Super Server/X11SPi-TF, BIOS 3.3 02/21/2020 Workqueue: btrfs-endio btrfs_end_bio_work [btrfs] Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x6e/0xa0 ? lock_release+0x708/0x780 print_report+0x174/0x505 ? lock_release+0x708/0x780 ? __virt_addr_valid+0x224/0x410 ? lock_release+0x708/0x780 kasan_report+0xda/0x1b0 ? lock_release+0x708/0x780 ? __wake_up+0x44/0x60 lock_release+0x708/0x780 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10 ? lock_is_held_type+0x9a/0x110 _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x1f/0x60 __wake_up+0x44/0x60 btrfs_encoded_read_endio+0x14b/0x190 [btrfs] btrfs_check_read_bio+0x8d9/0x1360 [btrfs] ? lock_release+0x1b0/0x780 ? trace_lock_acquire+0x12f/0x1a0 ? __pfx_btrfs_check_read_bio+0x10/0x10 [btrfs] ? process_one_work+0x7e3/0x1460 ? lock_acquire+0x31/0xc0 ? process_one_work+0x7e3/0x1460 process_one_work+0x85c/0x1460 ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10 ? assign_work+0x16c/0x240 worker_thread+0x5e6/0xfc0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x2c3/0x3a0 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x70 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> Allocated by task 3661: kasan_save_stack+0x30/0x50 kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 __kasan_kmalloc+0xaa/0xb0 btrfs_encoded_read_regular_fill_pages+0x16c/0x6d0 [btrfs] send_extent_data+0xf0f/0x24a0 [btrfs] process_extent+0x48a/0x1830 [btrfs] changed_cb+0x178b/0x2ea0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl_send+0x3bf9/0x5c20 [btrfs] _btrfs_ioctl_send+0x117/0x330 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x184a/0x60a0 [btrfs] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x12e/0x1a0 do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e Freed by task 3661: kasan_save_stack+0x30/0x50 kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 kasan_save_free_info+0x3b/0x70 __kasan_slab_free+0x4f/0x70 kfree+0x143/0x490 btrfs_encoded_read_regular_fill_pages+0x531/0x6d0 [btrfs] send_extent_data+0xf0f/0x24a0 [btrfs] process_extent+0x48a/0x1830 [btrfs] changed_cb+0x178b/0x2ea0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl_send+0x3bf9/0x5c20 [btrfs] _btrfs_ioctl_send+0x117/0x330 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x184a/0x60a0 [btrfs] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x12e/0x1a0 do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff888106a83f00 which belongs to the cache kmalloc-rnd-07-96 of size 96 The buggy address is located 24 bytes inside of freed 96-byte region [ffff888106a83f00, ffff888106a83f60) The buggy address belongs to the physical page: page: refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0xffff888106a83800 pfn:0x106a83 flags: 0x17ffffc0000000(node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff) page_type: f5(slab) raw: 0017ffffc0000000 ffff888100053680 ffffea0004917200 0000000000000004 raw: ffff888106a83800 0000000080200019 00000001f5000000 0000000000000000 page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected Memory state around the buggy address: ffff888106a83e00: fa fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc fc ffff888106a83e80: fa fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc fc >ffff888106a83f00: fa fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc fc ^ ffff888106a83f80: fa fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc fc ffff888106a84000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ================================================================== Further analyzing the trace and the crash dump's vmcore file shows that the wake_up() call in btrfs_encoded_read_endio() is calling wake_up() on the wait_queue that is in the private data passed to the end_io handler. Commit 4ff47df40447 ("btrfs: move priv off stack in btrfs_encoded_read_regular_fill_pages()") moved 'struct btrfs_encoded_read_private' off the stack. Before that commit one can see a corruption of the private data when analyzing the vmcore after a crash: *(struct btrfs_encoded_read_private *)0xffff88815626eec8 = { .wait = (wait_queue_head_t){ .lock = (spinlock_t){ .rlock = (struct raw_spinlock){ .raw_lock = (arch_spinlock_t){ .val = (atomic_t){ .counter = (int)-2005885696, }, .locked = (u8)0, .pending = (u8)157, .locked_pending = (u16)40192, .tail = (u16)34928, }, .magic = (unsigned int)536325682, .owner_cpu = (unsigned int)29, .owner = (void *)__SCT__tp_func_btrfs_transaction_commit+0x0 = 0x0, .dep_map = (struct lockdep_map){ .key = (struct lock_class_key *)0xffff8881575a3b6c, .class_cache = (struct lock_class *[2]){ 0xffff8882a71985c0, 0xffffea00066f5d40 }, .name = (const char *)0xffff88815626f100 = "", .wait_type_outer = (u8)37, .wait_type_inner = (u8)178, .lock_type = (u8)154, }, }, .__padding = (u8 [24]){ 0, 157, 112, 136, 50, 174, 247, 31, 29 }, .dep_map = (struct lockdep_map){ .key = (struct lock_class_key *)0xffff8881575a3b6c, .class_cache = (struct lock_class *[2]){ 0xffff8882a71985c0, 0xffffea00066f5d40 }, .name = (const char *)0xffff88815626f100 = "", .wait_type_outer = (u8)37, .wait_type_inner = (u8)178, .lock_type = (u8)154, }, }, .head = (struct list_head){ .next = (struct list_head *)0x112cca, .prev = (struct list_head *)0x47, }, }, .pending = (atomic_t){ .counter = (int)-1491499288, }, .status = (blk_status_t)130, } Here we can see several indicators of in-memory data corruption, e.g. the large negative atomic values of ->pending or ->wait->lock->rlock->raw_lock->val, as well as the bogus spinlock magic 0x1ff7ae32 (decimal 536325682 above) instead of 0xdead4ead or the bogus pointer values for ->wait->head. To fix this, change atomic_dec_return() to atomic_dec_and_test() to fix the corruption, as atomic_dec_return() is defined as two instructions on x86_64, whereas atomic_dec_and_test() is defined as a single atomic operation. This can lead to a situation where counter value is already decremented but the if statement in btrfs_encoded_read_endio() is not completely processed, i.e. the 0 test has not completed. If another thread continues executing btrfs_encoded_read_regular_fill_pages() the atomic_dec_return() there can see an already updated ->pending counter and continues by freeing the private data. Continuing in the endio handler the test for 0 succeeds and the wait_queue is woken up, resulting in a use-after-free. Reported-by: Shinichiro Kawasaki <[email protected]> Suggested-by: Damien Le Moal <[email protected]> Fixes: 1881fba ("btrfs: add BTRFS_IOC_ENCODED_READ ioctl") CC: [email protected] # 6.1+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Hou Tao says: ==================== The use of migrate_{disable|enable} pair in BPF is mainly due to the introduction of bpf memory allocator and the use of per-CPU data struct in its internal implementation. The caller needs to disable migration before invoking the alloc or free APIs of bpf memory allocator, and enable migration after the invocation. The main users of bpf memory allocator are various kind of bpf maps in which the map values or the special fields in the map values are allocated by using bpf memory allocator. At present, the running context for bpf program has already disabled migration explictly or implictly, therefore, when these maps are manipulated in bpf program, it is OK to not invoke migrate_disable() and migrate_enable() pair. Howevers, it is not always the case when these maps are manipulated through bpf syscall, therefore many migrate_{disable|enable} pairs are added when the map can either be manipulated by BPF program or BPF syscall. The initial idea of reducing the use of migrate_{disable|enable} comes from Alexei [1]. I turned it into a patch set that archives the goals through the following three methods: 1. remove unnecessary migrate_{disable|enable} pair when the BPF syscall path also disables migration, it is OK to remove the pair. Patch #1~#3 fall into this category, while patch #4~#5 are partially included. 2. move the migrate_{disable|enable} pair from inner callee to outer caller Instead of invoking migrate_disable() in the inner callee, invoking migrate_disable() in the outer caller to simplify reasoning about when migrate_disable() is needed. Patch #4~#5 and patch #6~#19 belongs to this category. 3. add cant_migrate() check in the inner callee Add cant_migrate() check in the inner callee to ensure the guarantee that migration is disabled is not broken. Patch #1~#5, #13, #16~#19 also belong to this category. Please check the individual patches for more details. Comments are always welcome. Change Log: v2: * sqaush the ->map_free related patches (#10~#12, #15) into one patch * remove unnecessary cant_migrate() checks. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
While performing the rq locking dance in dispatch_to_local_dsq(), we may trigger the following lock imbalance condition, in particular when multiple tasks are rapidly changing CPU affinity (i.e., running a `stress-ng --race-sched 0`): [ 13.413579] ===================================== [ 13.413660] WARNING: bad unlock balance detected! [ 13.413729] 6.13.0-virtme #15 Not tainted [ 13.413792] ------------------------------------- [ 13.413859] kworker/1:1/80 is trying to release lock (&rq->__lock) at: [ 13.413954] [<ffffffff873c6c48>] dispatch_to_local_dsq+0x108/0x1a0 [ 13.414111] but there are no more locks to release! [ 13.414176] [ 13.414176] other info that might help us debug this: [ 13.414258] 1 lock held by kworker/1:1/80: [ 13.414318] #0: ffff8b66feb41698 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x20/0x90 [ 13.414612] [ 13.414612] stack backtrace: [ 13.415255] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 80 Comm: kworker/1:1 Not tainted 6.13.0-virtme #15 [ 13.415505] Workqueue: 0x0 (events) [ 13.415567] Sched_ext: dsp_local_on (enabled+all), task: runnable_at=-2ms [ 13.415570] Call Trace: [ 13.415700] <TASK> [ 13.415744] dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0xe0 [ 13.415806] ? dispatch_to_local_dsq+0x108/0x1a0 [ 13.415884] print_unlock_imbalance_bug+0x11b/0x130 [ 13.415965] ? dispatch_to_local_dsq+0x108/0x1a0 [ 13.416226] lock_release+0x231/0x2c0 [ 13.416326] _raw_spin_unlock+0x1b/0x40 [ 13.416422] dispatch_to_local_dsq+0x108/0x1a0 [ 13.416554] flush_dispatch_buf+0x199/0x1d0 [ 13.416652] balance_one+0x194/0x370 [ 13.416751] balance_scx+0x61/0x1e0 [ 13.416848] prev_balance+0x43/0xb0 [ 13.416947] __pick_next_task+0x6b/0x1b0 [ 13.417052] __schedule+0x20d/0x1740 This happens because dispatch_to_local_dsq() is racing with dispatch_dequeue() and, when the latter wins, we incorrectly assume that the task has been moved to dst_rq. Fix by properly tracking the currently locked rq. Fixes: 4d3ca89 ("sched_ext: Refactor consume_remote_task()") Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Pull request for series with
subject: libbpf: Implement BTFGen
version: 7
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=614721