linux-stable.git/kernel/bpf, branch linux-4.12.y

bpf: fix map value attribute for hash of maps

2017-09-20T06:22:05+00:00

[ Upstream commit 33ba43ed0afc13a29b1314e3e45a9938d310ba13 ]

Currently, iproute2's BPF ELF loader works fine with array of maps
when retrieving the fd from a pinned node and doing a selfcheck
against the provided map attributes from the object file, but we
fail to do the same for hash of maps and thus refuse to get the
map from pinned node.

Reason is that when allocating hash of maps, fd_htab_map_alloc() will
set the value size to sizeof(void *), and any user space map creation
requests are forced to set 4 bytes as value size. Thus, selfcheck
will complain about exposed 8 bytes on 64 bit archs vs. 4 bytes from
object file as value size. Contract is that fdinfo or BPF_MAP_GET_FD_BY_ID
returns the value size used to create the map.

Fix it by handling it the same way as we do for array of maps, which
means that we leave value size at 4 bytes and in the allocation phase
round up value size to 8 bytes. alloc_htab_elem() needs an adjustment
in order to copy rounded up 8 bytes due to bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem()
calling into htab_map_update_elem() with the pointer of the map
pointer as value. Unlike array of maps where we just xchg(), we're
using the generic htab_map_update_elem() callback also used from helper
calls, which published the key/value already on return, so we need
to ensure to memcpy() the right size.

Fixes: bcc6b1b7ebf8 ("bpf: Add hash of maps support")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf/verifier: fix min/max handling in BPF_SUB

2017-08-30T08:26:28+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9305706c2e808ae59f1eb201867f82f1ddf6d7a6 ]

We have to subtract the src max from the dst min, and vice-versa, since
 (e.g.) the smallest result comes from the largest subtrahend.

Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree 
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix mixed signed/unsigned derived min/max value bounds

2017-08-30T08:26:28+00:00

[ Upstream commit 4cabc5b186b5427b9ee5a7495172542af105f02b ]

Edward reported that there's an issue in min/max value bounds
tracking when signed and unsigned compares both provide hints
on limits when having unknown variables. E.g. a program such
as the following should have been rejected:

   0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
   1: (bf) r2 = r10
   2: (07) r2 += -8
   3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8a94cda93400
   5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
   6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
   7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8
   8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
   9: (b7) r2 = -1
  10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0
  R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp
  11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1
  R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp
  12: (0f) r0 += r1
  13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0
  R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=1 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1
  R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp
  14: (b7) r0 = 0
  15: (95) exit

What happens is that in the first part ...

   8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
   9: (b7) r2 = -1
  10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3

... r1 carries an unsigned value, and is compared as unsigned
against a register carrying an immediate. Verifier deduces in
reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is unsigned and operation
is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, r1's
minimum bound must be 0 and maximum bound must be r2. Latter is
larger than the bound and thus max value is reset back to being
'invalid' aka BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE. Thus, r1 state is now
'R1=inv,min_value=0'. The subsequent test ...

  11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2

... is a signed compare of r1 with immediate value 1. Here,
verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare
is signed this time and operation is greater than (>), that
in the fall-through/false case, we can deduce that r1's maximum
bound must be 1, meaning with prior test, we result in r1 having
the following state: R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1. Given that
the actual value this holds is -8, the bounds are wrongly deduced.
When this is being added to r0 which holds the map_value(_adj)
type, then subsequent store access in above case will go through
check_mem_access() which invokes check_map_access_adj(), that
will then probe whether the map memory is in bounds based
on the min_value and max_value as well as access size since
the actual unknown value is min_value <= x <= max_value; commit
fce366a9dd0d ("bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{,
_adj} register types") provides some more explanation on the
semantics.

It's worth to note in this context that in the current code,
min_value and max_value tracking are used for two things, i)
dynamic map value access via check_map_access_adj() and since
commit 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory")
ii) also enforced at check_helper_mem_access() when passing a
memory address (pointer to packet, map value, stack) and length
pair to a helper and the length in this case is an unknown value
defining an access range through min_value/max_value in that
case. The min_value/max_value tracking is /not/ used in the
direct packet access case to track ranges. However, the issue
also affects case ii), for example, the following crafted program
based on the same principle must be rejected as well:

   0: (b7) r2 = 0
   1: (bf) r3 = r10
   2: (07) r3 += -512
   3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8
   4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
   5: (b7) r6 = -1
   6: (2d) if r4 > r6 goto pc+5
  R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512
  R4=inv,min_value=0 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp
   7: (65) if r4 s> 0x1 goto pc+4
  R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512
  R4=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1
  R10=fp
   8: (07) r4 += 1
   9: (b7) r5 = 0
  10: (6a) *(u16 *)(r10 -512) = 0
  11: (85) call bpf_skb_load_bytes#26
  12: (b7) r0 = 0
  13: (95) exit

Meaning, while we initialize the max_value stack slot that the
verifier thinks we access in the [1,2] range, in reality we
pass -7 as length which is interpreted as u32 in the helper.
Thus, this issue is relevant also for the case of helper ranges.
Resetting both bounds in check_reg_overflow() in case only one
of them exceeds limits is also not enough as similar test can be
created that uses values which are within range, thus also here
learned min value in r1 is incorrect when mixed with later signed
test to create a range:

   0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
   1: (bf) r2 = r10
   2: (07) r2 += -8
   3: (18) r1 = 0xffff880ad081fa00
   5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
   6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
   7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8
   8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
   9: (b7) r2 = 2
  10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+3
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3
  R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp
  11: (65) if r1 s> 0x4 goto pc+2
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0
  R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp
  12: (0f) r0 += r1
  13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0
  R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=4
  R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp
  14: (b7) r0 = 0
  15: (95) exit

This leaves us with two options for fixing this: i) to invalidate
all prior learned information once we switch signed context, ii)
to track min/max signed and unsigned boundaries separately as
done in [0]. (Given latter introduces major changes throughout
the whole verifier, it's rather net-next material, thus this
patch follows option i), meaning we can derive bounds either
from only signed tests or only unsigned tests.) There is still the
case of adjust_reg_min_max_vals(), where we adjust bounds on ALU
operations, meaning programs like the following where boundaries
on the reg get mixed in context later on when bounds are merged
on the dst reg must get rejected, too:

   0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
   1: (bf) r2 = r10
   2: (07) r2 += -8
   3: (18) r1 = 0xffff89b2bf87ce00
   5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
   6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+6
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp
   7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8
   8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
   9: (b7) r2 = 2
  10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+2
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3
  R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp
  11: (b7) r7 = 1
  12: (65) if r7 s> 0x0 goto pc+2
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3
  R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,max_value=0 R10=fp
  13: (b7) r0 = 0
  14: (95) exit

  from 12 to 15: R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0
  R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,min_value=1 R10=fp
  15: (0f) r7 += r1
  16: (65) if r7 s> 0x4 goto pc+2
  R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3
  R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp
  17: (0f) r0 += r7
  18: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0
  R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=4,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3
  R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp
  19: (b7) r0 = 0
  20: (95) exit

Meaning, in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we must also reset range
values on the dst when src/dst registers have mixed signed/
unsigned derived min/max value bounds with one unbounded value
as otherwise they can be added together deducing false boundaries.
Once both boundaries are established from either ALU ops or
compare operations w/o mixing signed/unsigned insns, then they
can safely be added to other regs also having both boundaries
established. Adding regs with one unbounded side to a map value
where the bounded side has been learned w/o mixing ops is
possible, but the resulting map value won't recover from that,
meaning such op is considered invalid on the time of actual
access. Invalid bounds are set on the dst reg in case i) src reg,
or ii) in case dst reg already had them. The only way to recover
would be to perform i) ALU ops but only 'add' is allowed on map
value types or ii) comparisons, but these are disallowed on
pointers in case they span a range. This is fine as only BPF_JEQ
and BPF_JNE may be performed on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers
which potentially turn them into PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE type depending
on the branch, so only here min/max value cannot be invalidated
for them.

In terms of state pruning, value_from_signed is considered
as well in states_equal() when dealing with adjusted map values.
With regards to breaking existing programs, there is a small
risk, but use-cases are rather quite narrow where this could
occur and mixing compares probably unlikely.

Joint work with Josef and Edward.

  [0] https://lists.iovisor.org/pipermail/iovisor-dev/2017-June/000822.html

Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Reported-by: Edward Cree 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree 
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf, verifier: add additional patterns to evaluate_reg_imm_alu

2017-08-30T08:26:28+00:00

[ Upstream commit 43188702b3d98d2792969a3377a30957f05695e6 ]

Currently the verifier does not track imm across alu operations when
the source register is of unknown type. This adds additional pattern
matching to catch this and track imm. We've seen LLVM generating this
pattern while working on cilium.

Signed-off-by: John Fastabend 
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent leaking pointer via xadd on unpriviledged

2017-06-29T19:44:34+00:00

Leaking kernel addresses on unpriviledged is generally disallowed,
for example, verifier rejects the following:

  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400
  3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r2
  R2 leaks addr into ctx

Doing pointer arithmetic on them is also forbidden, so that they
don't turn into unknown value and then get leaked out. However,
there's xadd as a special case, where we don't check the src reg
for being a pointer register, e.g. the following will pass:

  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r0
  2: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400 ; map
  4: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r1 +48) += r2
  5: (95) exit

We could store the pointer into skb->cb, loose the type context,
and then read it out from there again to leak it eventually out
of a map value. Or more easily in a different variant, too:

   0: (bf) r6 = r1
   1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
   2: (bf) r2 = r10
   3: (07) r2 += -8
   4: (18) r1 = 0x0
   6: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
   7: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+3
   R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp
   8: (b7) r3 = 0
   9: (7b) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = r3
  10: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r0 +0) += r6
  11: (b7) r0 = 0
  12: (95) exit

  from 7 to 11: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp
  11: (b7) r0 = 0
  12: (95) exit

Prevent this by checking xadd src reg for pointer types. Also
add a couple of test cases related to this.

Fixes: 1be7f75d1668 ("bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs")
Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau 
Acked-by: Edward Cree 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: fix wrong exposure of map_flags into fdinfo for lpm

2017-05-25T17:44:28+00:00

trie_alloc() always needs to have BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC passed in via
attr->map_flags, since it does not support preallocation yet. We
check the flag, but we never copy the flag into trie->map.map_flags,
which is later on exposed into fdinfo and used by loaders such as
iproute2. Latter uses this in bpf_map_selfcheck_pinned() to test
whether a pinned map has the same spec as the one from the BPF obj
file and if not, bails out, which is currently the case for lpm
since it exposes always 0 as flags.

Also copy over flags in array_map_alloc() and stack_map_alloc().
They always have to be 0 right now, but we should make sure to not
miss to copy them over at a later point in time when we add actual
flags for them to use.

Fixes: b95a5c4db09b ("bpf: add a longest prefix match trie map implementation")
Reported-by: Jarno Rajahalme 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: properly reset caller saved regs after helper call and ld_abs/ind

2017-05-25T17:44:27+00:00

Currently, after performing helper calls, we clear all caller saved
registers, that is r0 - r5 and fill r0 depending on struct bpf_func_proto
specification. The way we reset these regs can affect pruning decisions
in later paths, since we only reset register's imm to 0 and type to
NOT_INIT. However, we leave out clearing of other variables such as id,
min_value, max_value, etc, which can later on lead to pruning mismatches
due to stale data.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: fix incorrect pruning decision when alignment must be tracked

2017-05-25T17:44:27+00:00

Currently, when we enforce alignment tracking on direct packet access,
the verifier lets the following program pass despite doing a packet
write with unaligned access:

  0: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76)
  1: (61) r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80)
  2: (61) r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 +8)
  3: (bf) r0 = r2
  4: (07) r0 += 14
  5: (25) if r7 > 0x1 goto pc+4
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R10=fp
  6: (2d) if r0 > r3 goto pc+1
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R10=fp
  7: (63) *(u32 *)(r0 -4) = r0
  8: (b7) r0 = 0
  9: (95) exit

  from 6 to 8:
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R10=fp
  8: (b7) r0 = 0
  9: (95) exit

  from 5 to 10:
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=2 R10=fp
  10: (07) r0 += 1
  11: (05) goto pc-6
  6: safe                           <----- here, wrongly found safe
  processed 15 insns

However, if we enforce a pruning mismatch by adding state into r8
which is then being mismatched in states_equal(), we find that for
the otherwise same program, the verifier detects a misaligned packet
access when actually walking that path:

  0: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76)
  1: (61) r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80)
  2: (61) r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 +8)
  3: (b7) r8 = 1
  4: (bf) r0 = r2
  5: (07) r0 += 14
  6: (25) if r7 > 0x1 goto pc+4
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1
   R8=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1,min_align=1 R10=fp
  7: (2d) if r0 > r3 goto pc+1
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1
   R8=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1,min_align=1 R10=fp
  8: (63) *(u32 *)(r0 -4) = r0
  9: (b7) r0 = 0
  10: (95) exit

  from 7 to 9:
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1
   R8=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1,min_align=1 R10=fp
  9: (b7) r0 = 0
  10: (95) exit

  from 6 to 11:
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=2
   R8=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1,min_align=1 R10=fp
  11: (07) r0 += 1
  12: (b7) r8 = 0
  13: (05) goto pc-7                <----- mismatch due to r8
  7: (2d) if r0 > r3 goto pc+1
   R0=pkt(id=0,off=15,r=15) R1=ctx R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=15)
   R3=pkt_end R7=inv,min_value=2
   R8=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R10=fp
  8: (63) *(u32 *)(r0 -4) = r0
  misaligned packet access off 2+15+-4 size 4

The reason why we fail to see it in states_equal() is that the
third test in compare_ptrs_to_packet() ...

  if (old->off <= cur->off &&
      old->off >= old->range && cur->off >= cur->range)
          return true;

... will let the above pass. The situation we run into is that
old->off <= cur->off (14 <= 15), meaning that prior walked paths
went with smaller offset, which was later used in the packet
access after successful packet range check and found to be safe
already.

For example: Given is R0=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0). Adding offset 14
as in above program to it, results in R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0)
before the packet range test. Now, testing this against R3=pkt_end
with 'if r0 > r3 goto out' will transform R0 into R0=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14)
for the case when we're within bounds. A write into the packet
at offset *(u32 *)(r0 -4), that is, 2 + 14 -4, is valid and
aligned (2 is for NET_IP_ALIGN). After processing this with
all fall-through paths, we later on check paths from branches.
When the above skb->mark test is true, then we jump near the
end of the program, perform r0 += 1, and jump back to the
'if r0 > r3 goto out' test we've visited earlier already. This
time, R0 is of type R0=pkt(id=0,off=15,r=0), and we'll prune
that part because this time we'll have a larger safe packet
range, and we already found that with off=14 all further insn
were already safe, so it's safe as well with a larger off.
However, the problem is that the subsequent write into the packet
with 2 + 15 -4 is then unaligned, and not caught by the alignment
tracking. Note that min_align, aux_off, and aux_off_align were
all 0 in this example.

Since we cannot tell at this time what kind of packet access was
performed in the prior walk and what minimal requirements it has
(we might do so in the future, but that requires more complexity),
fix it to disable this pruning case for strict alignment for now,
and let the verifier do check such paths instead. With that applied,
the test cases pass and reject the program due to misalignment.

Fixes: d1174416747d ("bpf: Track alignment of register values in the verifier.")
Reference: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/761909/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

net: Make IP alignment calulations clearer.

2017-05-22T16:27:07+00:00

The assignmnet:

	ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN;

in compare_pkt_ptr_alignment() trips up Coverity because we can only
get to this code when strict is true, therefore ip_align will always
be 2 regardless of NET_IP_ALIGN's value.

So just assign directly to '2' and explain the situation in the
comment above.

Reported-by: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: adjust verifier heuristics

2017-05-18T02:55:27+00:00

Current limits with regards to processing program paths do not
really reflect today's needs anymore due to programs becoming
more complex and verifier smarter, keeping track of more data
such as const ALU operations, alignment tracking, spilling of
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ registers, and other features allowing for
smarter matching of what LLVM generates.

This also comes with the side-effect that we result in fewer
opportunities to prune search states and thus often need to do
more work to prove safety than in the past due to different
register states and stack layout where we mismatch. Generally,
it's quite hard to determine what caused a sudden increase in
complexity, it could be caused by something as trivial as a
single branch somewhere at the beginning of the program where
LLVM assigned a stack slot that is marked differently throughout
other branches and thus causing a mismatch, where verifier
then needs to prove safety for the whole rest of the program.
Subsequently, programs with even less than half the insn size
limit can get rejected. We noticed that while some programs
load fine under pre 4.11, they get rejected due to hitting
limits on more recent kernels. We saw that in the vast majority
of cases (90+%) pruning failed due to register mismatches. In
case of stack mismatches, majority of cases failed due to
different stack slot types (invalid, spill, misc) rather than
differences in spilled registers.

This patch makes pruning more aggressive by also adding markers
that sit at conditional jumps as well. Currently, we only mark
jump targets for pruning. For example in direct packet access,
these are usually error paths where we bail out. We found that
adding these markers, it can reduce number of processed insns
by up to 30%. Another option is to ignore reg->id in probing
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers, which can help pruning
slightly as well by up to 7% observed complexity reduction as
stand-alone. Meaning, if a previous path with register type
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL for map X was found to be safe, then
in the current state a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL register for
the same map X must be safe as well. Last but not least the
patch also adds a scheduling point and bumps the current limit
for instructions to be processed to a more adequate value.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller