Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
>
> This patch adds the verifier support to recognize inlined branch conditions.
> The LLVM knows that the branch evaluates to the same value, but the verifier
> couldn't track it. Hence causing valid programs to be rejected.
> The potential LLVM workaround: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87428
> can have undesired side effects, since LLVM doesn't know that
> skb->data/data_end are being compared. LLVM has to introduce extra boolean
> variable and use inline_asm trick to force easier for the verifier assembly.
>
> Instead teach the verifier to recognize that
> r1 = skb->data;
> r1 += 10;
> r2 = skb->data_end;
> if (r1 > r2) {
> here r1 points beyond packet_end and
> subsequent
> if (r1 > r2) // always evaluates to "true".
> }
>
> Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
Thanks, we can remove another set of inline asm logic.
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com>
> if (pred >= 0) {
> @@ -7517,7 +7601,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env
> *env,
> */
> if (!__is_pointer_value(false, dst_reg))
> err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->dst_reg);
> - if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err)
> + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err &&
> + !__is_pointer_value(false, src_reg))
This could have been more specific with !type_is_pkt_pointer() correct? I
think its fine as is though.
> err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->src_reg);
> if (err)
> return err;
> --
> 2.24.1
>
