Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: improve verifier branch analysis

From: Alexei Starovoitov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:46:05 -0800

pathological bpf programs may try to force verifier to explode in
the number of branch states:
  20: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x24000028 goto pc+0
  21: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe1fa20 goto pc+2
  22: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x7e goto pc+0
  23: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe880e000 goto pc+0
  24: (c5) if r0 s< 0x2100ecf4 goto pc+0
  25: (d5) if r1 s<= 0xe880e000 goto pc+1
  26: (c5) if r0 s< 0xf4041810 goto pc+0
  27: (d5) if r1 s<= 0x1e007e goto pc+0
  28: (b5) if r0 <= 0xe86be000 goto pc+0
  29: (07) r0 += 16614
  30: (c5) if r0 s< 0x6d0020da goto pc+0
  31: (35) if r0 >= 0x2100ecf4 goto pc+0

Teach verifier to recognize always taken and always not taken branches.
This analysis is already done for == and != comparison.
Expand it to all other branches.

It also helps real bpf programs to be verified faster:
                       before  after
bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o         2003    1940
bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o         3173    3089
bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o       1080    1065
bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o     29584   28052
bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o      36916   35487
bpf_netdev.o            11188   10864
bpf_overlay.o           6679    6643
bpf_lcx_jit.o           39555   38437

Reported-by: Anatoly Trosinenko <[email-masked]>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email-masked]>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email-masked]>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <[email-masked]>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       | 93 ++++++++++++++++++---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c |  4 +-
 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 751bb30b7c5c..55a49703f423 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3751,6 +3751,79 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate,
 	}
 }
 
+/* compute branch direction of the expression "if (reg opcode val) goto target;"
+ * and return:
+ *  1 - branch will be taken and "goto target" will be executed
+ *  0 - branch will not be taken and fall-through to next insn
+ * -1 - unknown. Example: "if (reg < 5)" is unknown when register value range [0,10]
+ */
+static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode)
+{
+	if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg))
+		return -1;
+
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_JEQ:
+		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
+			return !!tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val);
+		break;
+	case BPF_JNE:
+		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
+			return !tnum_equals_const(reg->var_off, val);
+		break;
+	case BPF_JGT:
+		if (reg->umin_value > val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umax_value <= val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSGT:
+		if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JLT:
+		if (reg->umax_value < val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umin_value >= val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSLT:
+		if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JGE:
+		if (reg->umin_value >= val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umax_value < val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSGE:
+		if (reg->smin_value >= (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smax_value < (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JLE:
+		if (reg->umax_value <= val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->umin_value > val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	case BPF_JSLE:
+		if (reg->smax_value <= (s64)val)
+			return 1;
+		else if (reg->smin_value > (s64)val)
+			return 0;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return -1;
+}
+
 /* Adjusts the register min/max values in the case that the dst_reg is the
  * variable register that we are working on, and src_reg is a constant or we're
  * simply doing a BPF_K check.
@@ -4152,21 +4225,15 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 
 	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 
-	/* detect if R == 0 where R was initialized to zero earlier */
-	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K &&
-	    (opcode == BPF_JEQ || opcode == BPF_JNE) &&
-	    dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE &&
-	    tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off)) {
-		if ((opcode == BPF_JEQ && dst_reg->var_off.value == insn->imm) ||
-		    (opcode == BPF_JNE && dst_reg->var_off.value != insn->imm)) {
-			/* if (imm == imm) goto pc+off;
-			 * only follow the goto, ignore fall-through
-			 */
+	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
+		int pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, insn->imm, opcode);
+
+		if (pred == 1) {
+			 /* only follow the goto, ignore fall-through */
 			*insn_idx += insn->off;
 			return 0;
-		} else {
-			/* if (imm != imm) goto pc+off;
-			 * only follow fall-through branch, since
+		} else if (pred == 0) {
+			/* only follow fall-through branch, since
 			 * that's where the program will go
 			 */
 			return 0;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 5dd4410a716c..df6f751cc1e8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -8576,7 +8576,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7),
 		},
 		.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 },
-		.errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+		.errstr = "unbounded min value",
 		.result = REJECT,
 	},
 	{
@@ -10547,7 +10547,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		"check deducing bounds from const, 5",
 		.insns = {
 			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
-			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1),
 			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 		},
-- 
2.17.1