Subject: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: improve stacksafe state comparison

From: Alexei Starovoitov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:42:33 -0800

"if (old->allocated_stack > cur->allocated_stack)" check is too conservative.
In some cases explored stack could have allocated more space,
but that stack space was not live.
The test case improves from 19 to 15 processed insns
and improvement on real programs is significant as well:

                       before    after
bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o        1940      1831
bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o        3089      3029
bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o      1065      1064
bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o    28052     26309
bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o     35487     33517
bpf_netdev.o           10864     9713
bpf_overlay.o          6643      6184
bpf_lcx_jit.o          38437     37335

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email-masked]>
Acked-by: Edward Cree <[email-masked]>
Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       | 13 ++++++------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d4db4727a50e..6e5ea4c4d8e7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5134,12 +5134,6 @@ static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_func_state *old,
 {
 	int i, spi;
 
-	/* if explored stack has more populated slots than current stack
-	 * such stacks are not equivalent
-	 */
-	if (old->allocated_stack > cur->allocated_stack)
-		return false;
-
 	/* walk slots of the explored stack and ignore any additional
 	 * slots in the current stack, since explored(safe) state
 	 * didn't use them
@@ -5155,6 +5149,13 @@ static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_func_state *old,
 
 		if (old->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] == STACK_INVALID)
 			continue;
+
+		/* explored stack has more populated slots than current stack
+		 * and these slots were used
+		 */
+		if (i >= cur->allocated_stack)
+			return false;
+
 		/* if old state was safe with misc data in the stack
 		 * it will be safe with zero-initialized stack.
 		 * The opposite is not true
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 82359cdbc805..f9de7fe0c26d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -13647,6 +13647,28 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
 		.result = ACCEPT,
 	},
+	{
+		"allocated_stack",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 5),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_6, -8),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+			BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_7, -9),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10, -9),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+		.result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+		.insn_processed = 15,
+	},
 	{
 		"reference tracking in call: free reference in subprog and outside",
 		.insns = {
-- 
2.17.1