Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
bpf: introduce bounded loops
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
Allow the verifier to validate the loops by simulating their execution.
Exisiting programs have used '#pragma unroll' to unroll the loops
by the compiler. Instead let the verifier simulate all iterations
of the loop.
In order to do that introduce parentage chain of bpf_verifier_state and
'branches' counter for the number of branches left to explore.
See more detailed algorithm description in bpf_verifier.h

This algorithm borrows the key idea from Edward Cree approach:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/877222/
Additional state pruning heuristics make such brute force loop walk
practical even for large loops.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
  • Loading branch information
@borkmann
Alexei Starovoitov authored and borkmann committed Jun 19, 2019
1 parent fb8d251 commit 2589726
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 2 changed files with 181 additions and 13 deletions.
51 changes: 50 additions & 1 deletion include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -194,6 +194,53 @@ struct bpf_func_state {
struct bpf_verifier_state {
/* call stack tracking */
struct bpf_func_state *frame[MAX_CALL_FRAMES];
struct bpf_verifier_state *parent;
/*
* 'branches' field is the number of branches left to explore:
* 0 - all possible paths from this state reached bpf_exit or
* were safely pruned
* 1 - at least one path is being explored.
* This state hasn't reached bpf_exit
* 2 - at least two paths are being explored.
* This state is an immediate parent of two children.
* One is fallthrough branch with branches==1 and another
* state is pushed into stack (to be explored later) also with
* branches==1. The parent of this state has branches==1.
* The verifier state tree connected via 'parent' pointer looks like:
* 1
* 1
* 2 -> 1 (first 'if' pushed into stack)
* 1
* 2 -> 1 (second 'if' pushed into stack)
* 1
* 1
* 1 bpf_exit.
*
* Once do_check() reaches bpf_exit, it calls update_branch_counts()
* and the verifier state tree will look:
* 1
* 1
* 2 -> 1 (first 'if' pushed into stack)
* 1
* 1 -> 1 (second 'if' pushed into stack)
* 0
* 0
* 0 bpf_exit.
* After pop_stack() the do_check() will resume at second 'if'.
*
* If is_state_visited() sees a state with branches > 0 it means
* there is a loop. If such state is exactly equal to the current state
* it's an infinite loop. Note states_equal() checks for states
* equvalency, so two states being 'states_equal' does not mean
* infinite loop. The exact comparison is provided by
* states_maybe_looping() function. It's a stronger pre-check and
* much faster than states_equal().
*
* This algorithm may not find all possible infinite loops or
* loop iteration count may be too high.
* In such cases BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS limit kicks in.
*/
u32 branches;
u32 insn_idx;
u32 curframe;
u32 active_spin_lock;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -312,7 +359,9 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
} cfg;
u32 subprog_cnt;
/* number of instructions analyzed by the verifier */
u32 insn_processed;
u32 prev_insn_processed, insn_processed;
/* number of jmps, calls, exits analyzed so far */
u32 prev_jmps_processed, jmps_processed;
/* total verification time */
u64 verification_time;
/* maximum number of verifier states kept in 'branching' instructions */
Expand Down
143 changes: 131 additions & 12 deletions kernel/bpf/verifier.c
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -721,6 +721,8 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state,
dst_state->speculative = src->speculative;
dst_state->curframe = src->curframe;
dst_state->active_spin_lock = src->active_spin_lock;
dst_state->branches = src->branches;
dst_state->parent = src->parent;
for (i = 0; i <= src->curframe; i++) {
dst = dst_state->frame[i];
if (!dst) {
Expand All @@ -736,6 +738,23 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state,
return 0;
}

static void update_branch_counts(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_verifier_state *st)
{
while (st) {
u32 br = --st->branches;

/* WARN_ON(br > 1) technically makes sense here,
* but see comment in push_stack(), hence:
*/
WARN_ONCE((int)br < 0,
"BUG update_branch_counts:branches_to_explore=%d\n",
br);
if (br)
break;
st = st->parent;
}
}

static int pop_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *prev_insn_idx,
int *insn_idx)
{
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -789,6 +808,18 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
env->stack_size);
goto err;
}
if (elem->st.parent) {
++elem->st.parent->branches;
/* WARN_ON(branches > 2) technically makes sense here,
* but
* 1. speculative states will bump 'branches' for non-branch
* instructions
* 2. is_state_visited() heuristics may decide not to create
* a new state for a sequence of branches and all such current
* and cloned states will be pointing to a single parent state
* which might have large 'branches' count.
*/
}
return &elem->st;
err:
free_verifier_state(env->cur_state, true);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -5682,7 +5713,8 @@ static void init_explored_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx)
* w - next instruction
* e - edge
*/
static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
bool loop_ok)
{
int *insn_stack = env->cfg.insn_stack;
int *insn_state = env->cfg.insn_state;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -5712,6 +5744,8 @@ static int push_insn(int t, int w, int e, struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
insn_stack[env->cfg.cur_stack++] = w;
return 1;
} else if ((insn_state[w] & 0xF0) == DISCOVERED) {
if (loop_ok && env->allow_ptr_leaks)
return 0;
verbose_linfo(env, t, "%d: ", t);
verbose_linfo(env, w, "%d: ", w);
verbose(env, "back-edge from insn %d to %d\n", t, w);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -5763,7 +5797,7 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) {
goto mark_explored;
} else if (opcode == BPF_CALL) {
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env);
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env, false);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
Expand All @@ -5772,7 +5806,8 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
init_explored_state(env, t + 1);
if (insns[t].src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) {
init_explored_state(env, t);
ret = push_insn(t, t + insns[t].imm + 1, BRANCH, env);
ret = push_insn(t, t + insns[t].imm + 1, BRANCH,
env, false);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
Expand All @@ -5785,7 +5820,7 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
}
/* unconditional jump with single edge */
ret = push_insn(t, t + insns[t].off + 1,
FALLTHROUGH, env);
FALLTHROUGH, env, true);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
Expand All @@ -5798,13 +5833,13 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
} else {
/* conditional jump with two edges */
init_explored_state(env, t);
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env);
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env, true);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
goto err_free;

ret = push_insn(t, t + insns[t].off + 1, BRANCH, env);
ret = push_insn(t, t + insns[t].off + 1, BRANCH, env, true);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
Expand All @@ -5814,7 +5849,7 @@ static int check_cfg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
/* all other non-branch instructions with single
* fall-through edge
*/
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env);
ret = push_insn(t, t + 1, FALLTHROUGH, env, false);
if (ret == 1)
goto peek_stack;
else if (ret < 0)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -6247,6 +6282,8 @@ static void clean_live_states(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn,

sl = *explored_state(env, insn);
while (sl) {
if (sl->state.branches)
goto next;
if (sl->state.insn_idx != insn ||
sl->state.curframe != cur->curframe)
goto next;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -6611,19 +6648,51 @@ static int propagate_liveness(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return 0;
}

static bool states_maybe_looping(struct bpf_verifier_state *old,
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur)
{
struct bpf_func_state *fold, *fcur;
int i, fr = cur->curframe;

if (old->curframe != fr)
return false;

fold = old->frame[fr];
fcur = cur->frame[fr];
for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
if (memcmp(&fold->regs[i], &fcur->regs[i],
offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, parent)))
return false;
return true;
}


static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
{
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *new_sl;
struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl, **pprev;
struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state, *new;
int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0;
bool add_new_state = false;

if (!env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].prune_point)
/* this 'insn_idx' instruction wasn't marked, so we will not
* be doing state search here
*/
return 0;

/* bpf progs typically have pruning point every 4 instructions
* http://vger.kernel.org/bpfconf2019.html#session-1
* Do not add new state for future pruning if the verifier hasn't seen
* at least 2 jumps and at least 8 instructions.
* This heuristics helps decrease 'total_states' and 'peak_states' metric.
* In tests that amounts to up to 50% reduction into total verifier
* memory consumption and 20% verifier time speedup.
*/
if (env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed >= 2 &&
env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed >= 8)
add_new_state = true;

pprev = explored_state(env, insn_idx);
sl = *pprev;

Expand All @@ -6633,6 +6702,30 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
states_cnt++;
if (sl->state.insn_idx != insn_idx)
goto next;
if (sl->state.branches) {
if (states_maybe_looping(&sl->state, cur) &&
states_equal(env, &sl->state, cur)) {
verbose_linfo(env, insn_idx, "; ");
verbose(env, "infinite loop detected at insn %d\n", insn_idx);
return -EINVAL;
}
/* if the verifier is processing a loop, avoid adding new state
* too often, since different loop iterations have distinct
* states and may not help future pruning.
* This threshold shouldn't be too low to make sure that
* a loop with large bound will be rejected quickly.
* The most abusive loop will be:
* r1 += 1
* if r1 < 1000000 goto pc-2
* 1M insn_procssed limit / 100 == 10k peak states.
* This threshold shouldn't be too high either, since states
* at the end of the loop are likely to be useful in pruning.
*/
if (env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed < 20 &&
env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed < 100)
add_new_state = false;
goto miss;
}
if (states_equal(env, &sl->state, cur)) {
sl->hit_cnt++;
/* reached equivalent register/stack state,
Expand All @@ -6650,7 +6743,15 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
return err;
return 1;
}
sl->miss_cnt++;
miss:
/* when new state is not going to be added do not increase miss count.
* Otherwise several loop iterations will remove the state
* recorded earlier. The goal of these heuristics is to have
* states from some iterations of the loop (some in the beginning
* and some at the end) to help pruning.
*/
if (add_new_state)
sl->miss_cnt++;
/* heuristic to determine whether this state is beneficial
* to keep checking from state equivalence point of view.
* Higher numbers increase max_states_per_insn and verification time,
Expand All @@ -6662,6 +6763,11 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
*/
*pprev = sl->next;
if (sl->state.frame[0]->regs[0].live & REG_LIVE_DONE) {
u32 br = sl->state.branches;

WARN_ONCE(br,
"BUG live_done but branches_to_explore %d\n",
br);
free_verifier_state(&sl->state, false);
kfree(sl);
env->peak_states--;
Expand All @@ -6687,18 +6793,25 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES)
return 0;

/* there were no equivalent states, remember current one.
* technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
if (!add_new_state)
return 0;

/* There were no equivalent states, remember the current one.
* Technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
* but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)
* or it will be rejected. Since there are no loops, we won't be
* or it will be rejected. When there are no loops the verifier won't be
* seeing this tuple (frame[0].callsite, frame[1].callsite, .. insn_idx)
* again on the way to bpf_exit
* again on the way to bpf_exit.
* When looping the sl->state.branches will be > 0 and this state
* will not be considered for equivalence until branches == 0.
*/
new_sl = kzalloc(sizeof(struct bpf_verifier_state_list), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!new_sl)
return -ENOMEM;
env->total_states++;
env->peak_states++;
env->prev_jmps_processed = env->jmps_processed;
env->prev_insn_processed = env->insn_processed;

/* add new state to the head of linked list */
new = &new_sl->state;
Expand All @@ -6709,6 +6822,9 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
return err;
}
new->insn_idx = insn_idx;
WARN_ONCE(new->branches != 1,
"BUG is_state_visited:branches_to_explore=%d insn %d\n", new->branches, insn_idx);
cur->parent = new;
new_sl->next = *explored_state(env, insn_idx);
*explored_state(env, insn_idx) = new_sl;
/* connect new state to parentage chain. Current frame needs all
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -6795,6 +6911,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return -ENOMEM;
state->curframe = 0;
state->speculative = false;
state->branches = 1;
state->frame[0] = kzalloc(sizeof(struct bpf_func_state), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!state->frame[0]) {
kfree(state);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -7001,6 +7118,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
} else if (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32) {
u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);

env->jmps_processed++;
if (opcode == BPF_CALL) {
if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K ||
insn->off != 0 ||
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -7086,6 +7204,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
if (err)
return err;
process_bpf_exit:
update_branch_counts(env, env->cur_state);
err = pop_stack(env, &env->prev_insn_idx,
&env->insn_idx);
if (err < 0) {
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 2589726

Please sign in to comment.