[test] bpf_test #14
Closed
[test] bpf_test #14
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
48be228
to
e3eecb1
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
e3eecb1
to
3eff9da
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
3eff9da
to
e0ec73a
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
e0ec73a
to
8b7624e
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
8b7624e
to
643843b
Compare
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2022
When bringing down the netdevice or system shutdown, a panic can be
triggered while accessing the sysfs path because the device is already
removed.
[ 755.549084] mlx5_core 0000:12:00.1: Shutdown was called
[ 756.404455] mlx5_core 0000:12:00.0: Shutdown was called
...
[ 757.937260] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null)
[ 758.031397] IP: [<ffffffff8ee11acb>] dma_pool_alloc+0x1ab/0x280
crash> bt
...
PID: 12649 TASK: ffff8924108f2100 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "amsd"
...
#9 [ffff89240e1a38b0] page_fault at ffffffff8f38c778
[exception RIP: dma_pool_alloc+0x1ab]
RIP: ffffffff8ee11acb RSP: ffff89240e1a3968 RFLAGS: 00010046
RAX: 0000000000000246 RBX: ffff89243d874100 RCX: 0000000000001000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000246 RDI: ffff89243d874090
RBP: ffff89240e1a39c0 R8: 000000000001f080 R9: ffff8905ffc03c00
R10: ffffffffc04680d4 R11: ffffffff8edde9fd R12: 00000000000080d0
R13: ffff89243d874090 R14: ffff89243d874080 R15: 0000000000000000
ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018
#10 [ffff89240e1a39c8] mlx5_alloc_cmd_msg at ffffffffc04680f3 [mlx5_core]
#11 [ffff89240e1a3a18] cmd_exec at ffffffffc046ad62 [mlx5_core]
#12 [ffff89240e1a3ab8] mlx5_cmd_exec at ffffffffc046b4fb [mlx5_core]
#13 [ffff89240e1a3ae8] mlx5_core_access_reg at ffffffffc0475434 [mlx5_core]
#14 [ffff89240e1a3b40] mlx5e_get_fec_caps at ffffffffc04a7348 [mlx5_core]
#15 [ffff89240e1a3bb0] get_fec_supported_advertised at ffffffffc04992bf [mlx5_core]
#16 [ffff89240e1a3c08] mlx5e_get_link_ksettings at ffffffffc049ab36 [mlx5_core]
#17 [ffff89240e1a3ce8] __ethtool_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff8f25db46
#18 [ffff89240e1a3d48] speed_show at ffffffff8f277208
#19 [ffff89240e1a3dd8] dev_attr_show at ffffffff8f0b70e3
#20 [ffff89240e1a3df8] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffff8eedbedf
#21 [ffff89240e1a3e18] kernfs_seq_show at ffffffff8eeda596
#22 [ffff89240e1a3e28] seq_read at ffffffff8ee76d10
#23 [ffff89240e1a3e98] kernfs_fop_read at ffffffff8eedaef5
#24 [ffff89240e1a3ed8] vfs_read at ffffffff8ee4e3ff
#25 [ffff89240e1a3f08] sys_read at ffffffff8ee4f27f
#26 [ffff89240e1a3f50] system_call_fastpath at ffffffff8f395f92
crash> net_device.state ffff89443b0c0000
state = 0x5 (__LINK_STATE_START| __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER)
To prevent this scenario, we also make sure that the netdevice is present.
Signed-off-by: suresh kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
643843b
to
dbc3cf7
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
dbc3cf7
to
9cf59e7
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
9cf59e7
to
a0ccb4c
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
a0ccb4c
to
1abe8e8
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
1abe8e8
to
7ced3af
Compare
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2022
Ido Schimmel says:
====================
HW counters for soft devices
Petr says:
Offloading switch device drivers may be able to collect statistics of the
traffic taking place in the HW datapath that pertains to a certain soft
netdevice, such as a VLAN. In this patch set, add the necessary
infrastructure to allow exposing these statistics to the offloaded
netdevice in question, and add mlxsw offload.
Across HW platforms, the counter itself very likely constitutes a limited
resource, and the act of counting may have a performance impact. Therefore
this patch set makes the HW statistics collection opt-in and togglable from
userspace on a per-netdevice basis.
Additionally, HW devices may have various limiting conditions under which
they can realize the counter. Therefore it is also possible to query
whether the requested counter is realized by any driver. In TC parlance,
which is to a degree reused in this patch set, two values are recognized:
"request" tracks whether the user enabled collecting HW statistics, and
"used" tracks whether any HW statistics are actually collected.
In the past, this author has expressed the opinion that `a typical user
doing "ip -s l sh", including various scripts, wants to see the full
picture and not worry what's going on where'. While that would be nice,
unfortunately it cannot work:
- Packets that trap from the HW datapath to the SW datapath would be
double counted.
For a given netdevice, some traffic can be purely a SW artifact, and some
may flow through the HW object corresponding to the netdevice. But some
traffic can also get trapped to the SW datapath after bumping the HW
counter. It is not clear how to make sure double-counting does not occur
in the SW datapath in that case, while still making sure that possibly
divergent SW forwarding path gets bumped as appropriate.
So simply adding HW and SW stats may work roughly, most of the time, but
there are scenarios where the result is nonsensical.
- HW devices will have limitations as to what type of traffic they can
count.
In case of mlxsw, which is part of this patch set, there is no reasonable
way to count all traffic going through a certain netdevice, such as a
VLAN netdevice enslaved to a bridge. It is however very simple to count
traffic flowing through an L3 object, such as a VLAN netdevice with an IP
address.
Similarly for physical netdevices, the L3 object at which the counter is
installed is the subport carrying untagged traffic.
These are not "just counters". It is important that the user understands
what is being counted. It would be incorrect to conflate these statistics
with another existing statistics suite.
To that end, this patch set introduces a statistics suite called "L3
stats". This label should make it easy to understand what is being counted,
and to decide whether a given device can or cannot implement this suite for
some type of netdevice. At the same time, the code is written to make
future extensions easy, should a device pop up that can implement a
different flavor of statistics suite (say L2, or an address-family-specific
suite).
For example, using a work-in-progress iproute2[1], to turn on and then list
the counters on a VLAN netdevice:
# ip stats set dev swp1.200 l3_stats on
# ip stats show dev swp1.200 group offload subgroup l3_stats
56: swp1.200: group offload subgroup l3_stats on used on
RX: bytes packets errors dropped missed mcast
0 0 0 0 0 0
TX: bytes packets errors dropped carrier collsns
0 0 0 0 0 0
The patchset progresses as follows:
- Patch #1 is a cleanup.
- In patch #2, remove the assumption that all LINK_OFFLOAD_XSTATS are
dev-backed.
The only attribute defined under the nest is currently
IFLA_OFFLOAD_XSTATS_CPU_HIT. L3_STATS differs from CPU_HIT in that the
driver that supplies the statistics is not the same as the driver that
implements the netdevice. Make the code compatible with this in patch #2.
- In patch #3, add the possibility to filter inside nests.
The filter_mask field of RTM_GETSTATS header determines which
top-level attributes should be included in the netlink response. This
saves processing time by only including the bits that the user cares
about instead of always dumping everything. This is doubly important
for HW-backed statistics that would typically require a trip to the
device to fetch the stats. In this patch, the UAPI is extended to
allow filtering inside IFLA_STATS_LINK_OFFLOAD_XSTATS in particular,
but the scheme is easily extensible to other nests as well.
- In patch #4, propagate extack where we need it.
In patch #5, make it possible to propagate errors from drivers to the
user.
- In patch #6, add the in-kernel APIs for keeping track of the new stats
suite, and the notifiers that the core uses to communicate with the
drivers.
- In patch #7, add UAPI for obtaining the new stats suite.
- In patch #8, add a new UAPI message, RTM_SETSTATS, which will carry
the message to toggle the newly-added stats suite.
In patch #9, add the toggle itself.
At this point the core is ready for drivers to add support for the new
stats suite.
- In patches #10, #11 and #12, apply small tweaks to mlxsw code.
- In patch #13, add support for L3 stats, which are realized as RIF
counters.
- Finally in patch #14, a selftest is added to the net/forwarding
directory. Technically this is a HW-specific test, in that without a HW
implementing the counters, it just will not pass. But devices that
support L3 statistics at all are likely to be able to reuse this
selftest, so it seems appropriate to put it in the general forwarding
directory.
We also have a netdevsim implementation, and a corresponding selftest that
verifies specifically some of the core code. We intend to contribute these
later. Interested parties can take a look at the raw code at [2].
[1] https://github.com/pmachata/iproute2/commits/soft_counters
[2] https://github.com/pmachata/linux_mlxsw/commits/petrm_soft_counters_2
v2:
- Patch #3:
- Do not declare strict_start_type at the new policies, since they are
used with nla_parse_nested() (sans _deprecated).
- Use NLA_POLICY_NESTED to declare what the nest contents should be
- Use NLA_POLICY_MASK instead of BITFIELD32 for the filtering
attribute.
- Patch #6:
- s/monotonous/monotonic/ in commit message
- Use a newly-added struct rtnl_hw_stats64 for stats transfer
- Patch #7:
- Use a newly-added struct rtnl_hw_stats64 for stats transfer
- Patch #8:
- Do not declare strict_start_type at the new policies, since they are
used with nla_parse_nested() (sans _deprecated).
- Patch #13:
- Use a newly-added struct rtnl_hw_stats64 for stats transfer
====================
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
7ced3af
to
bfe52d8
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
bfe52d8
to
0553f92
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
0553f92
to
8b5cd84
Compare
|
branch: bpf_test |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
bpf_test
branch
from
8b5cd84
to
d626b26
Compare
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
{S32/S16/S8}_MIN and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
Here, we check smin with {S32/S16/S8}_MIN since this is the most common result related to
signed extension load.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn such that if the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative and 64-bit smin is
in range of [{S32/S16/S8}_MIN, 0) and 64-bit max is no greater than {U32/U16/U8}_MAX.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 18, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2024
With latest llvm19, the selftest iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count
failed with -mcpu=v4.
The following are the details:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx) @ iters.c:1420
0: (b4) w7 = 0 ; R7_w=0
; int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0; @ iters.c:1422
1: (18) r1 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144)
3: (61) r6 = *(u32 *)(r1 +128) ; R1_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) R6_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
; if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data)) @ iters.c:1424
4: (26) if w6 > 0x20 goto pc+27 ; R6_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
5: (bf) r8 = r10 ; R8_w=fp0 R10=fp0
6: (07) r8 += -8 ; R8_w=fp-8
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
7: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1_w=fp-8 R8_w=fp-8
8: (b4) w2 = 0 ; R2_w=0
9: (bc) w3 = w6 ; R3_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R6_w=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f))
10: (85) call bpf_iter_num_new#45179 ; R0=scalar() fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=0) refs=2
11: (bf) r1 = r8 ; R1=fp-8 R8=fp-8 refs=2
12: (85) call bpf_iter_num_next#45181 13: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; bpf_for(i, 0, n) { @ iters.c:1427
13: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) refs=2
14: (81) r1 = *(s32 *)(r0 +0) ; R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff) refs=2
15: (ae) if w1 < w6 goto pc+4 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=3,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=smax32=umax32=31,umax=0xffffffff0000001f,smin32=0,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff0000001f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=0 R8=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=1) refs=2
; sum += loop_data.data[i]; @ iters.c:1429
20: (67) r1 <<= 2 ; R1_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffc0000007c,umax=0xfffffffc0000007c,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=124,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffc0000007c)) refs=2
21: (18) r2 = 0xffffc90000191478 ; R2_w=map_value(map=iters.bss,ks=4,vs=1280,off=1144) refs=2
23: (0f) r2 += r1
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
The source code:
int iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count(const void *ctx)
{
int i, n = loop_data.n, sum = 0;
if (n > ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.data))
return 0;
bpf_for(i, 0, n) {
/* no rechecking of i against ARRAY_SIZE(loop_data.n) */
sum += loop_data.data[i];
}
return sum;
}
The insn #14 is a sign-extenstion load which is related to 'int i'.
The insn #15 did a subreg comparision. Note that smin=0xffffffff80000000 and this caused later
insn #23 failed verification due to unbounded min value.
Actually insn #15 R1 smin range can be better. Before insn #15, we have
R1_w=scalar(smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff)
With the above range, we know for R1, upper 32bit can only be 0xffffffff or 0.
Otherwise, the value range for R1 could be beyond [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff].
After insn #15, for the true patch, we know smin32=0 and smax32=32. With the upper 32bit 0xffffffff,
then the corresponding value is [0xffffffff00000000, 0xffffffff00000020]. The range is
obviously beyond the original range [smin=0xffffffff80000000,smax=0x7fffffff] and the
range is not possible. So the upper 32bit must be 0, which implies smin = smin32 and
smax = smax32.
This patch fixed the issue by adding additional register deduction after 32-bit compare
insn. If the signed 32-bit register range is non-negative then 64-bit smin is
in range of [S32_MIN, S32_MAX], then the actual 64-bit smin/smax should be the same
as 32-bit smin32/smax32.
With this patch, iters/iter_arr_with_actual_elem_count succeeded with better register range:
from 15 to 20: R0=rdonly_mem(id=7,ref_obj_id=2,sz=4) R1_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=31,var_off=(0x0; 0x1f)) R6=scalar(id=1,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=1,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=32,var_off=(0x0; 0x3f)) R7=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R8=scalar(id=9,smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=iter_num(ref_id=2,state=active,depth=3) refs=2
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2024
A sysfs reader can race with a device reset or removal, attempting to
read device state when the device is not actually present. eg:
[exception RIP: qed_get_current_link+17]
#8 [ffffb9e4f2907c48] qede_get_link_ksettings at ffffffffc07a994a [qede]
#9 [ffffb9e4f2907cd8] __rh_call_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff992b01a3
#10 [ffffb9e4f2907d38] __ethtool_get_link_ksettings at ffffffff992b04e4
#11 [ffffb9e4f2907d90] duplex_show at ffffffff99260300
#12 [ffffb9e4f2907e38] dev_attr_show at ffffffff9905a01c
#13 [ffffb9e4f2907e50] sysfs_kf_seq_show at ffffffff98e0145b
#14 [ffffb9e4f2907e68] seq_read at ffffffff98d902e3
#15 [ffffb9e4f2907ec8] vfs_read at ffffffff98d657d1
#16 [ffffb9e4f2907f00] ksys_read at ffffffff98d65c3f
#17 [ffffb9e4f2907f38] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff98a052fb
crash> struct net_device.state ffff9a9d21336000
state = 5,
state 5 is __LINK_STATE_START (0b1) and __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER (0b100).
The device is not present, note lack of __LINK_STATE_PRESENT (0b10).
This is the same sort of panic as observed in commit 4224cfd
("net-sysfs: add check for netdevice being present to speed_show").
There are many other callers of __ethtool_get_link_ksettings() which
don't have a device presence check.
Move this check into ethtool to protect all callers.
Fixes: d519e17 ("net: export device speed and duplex via sysfs")
Fixes: 4224cfd ("net-sysfs: add check for netdevice being present to speed_show")
Signed-off-by: Jamie Bainbridge <[email protected]>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/8bae218864beaa44ed01628140475b9bf641c5b0.1724393671.git.jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 13, 2024
…rnel/git/netfilter/nf-next Pablo Neira Ayuso says: ==================== Netfilter updates for net-next The following patchset contains Netfilter updates for net-next: Patch #1 adds ctnetlink support for kernel side filtering for deletions, from Changliang Wu. Patch #2 updates nft_counter support to Use u64_stats_t, from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior. Patch #3 uses kmemdup_array() in all xtables frontends, from Yan Zhen. Patch #4 is a oneliner to use ERR_CAST() in nf_conntrack instead opencoded casting, from Shen Lichuan. Patch #5 removes unused argument in nftables .validate interface, from Florian Westphal. Patch #6 is a oneliner to correct a typo in nftables kdoc, from Simon Horman. Patch #7 fixes missing kdoc in nftables, also from Simon. Patch #8 updates nftables to handle timeout less than CONFIG_HZ. Patch #9 rejects element expiration if timeout is zero, otherwise it is silently ignored. Patch #10 disallows element expiration larger than timeout. Patch #11 removes unnecessary READ_ONCE annotation while mutex is held. Patch #12 adds missing READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE annotation in dynset. Patch #13 annotates data-races around element expiration. Patch #14 allocates timeout and expiration in one single set element extension, they are tighly couple, no reason to keep them separated anymore. Patch #15 updates nftables to interpret zero timeout element as never times out. Note that it is already possible to declare sets with elements that never time out but this generalizes to all kind of set with timeouts. Patch #16 supports for element timeout and expiration updates. * tag 'nf-next-24-09-06' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netfilter/nf-next: netfilter: nf_tables: set element timeout update support netfilter: nf_tables: zero timeout means element never times out netfilter: nf_tables: consolidate timeout extension for elements netfilter: nf_tables: annotate data-races around element expiration netfilter: nft_dynset: annotate data-races around set timeout netfilter: nf_tables: remove annotation to access set timeout while holding lock netfilter: nf_tables: reject expiration higher than timeout netfilter: nf_tables: reject element expiration with no timeout netfilter: nf_tables: elements with timeout below CONFIG_HZ never expire netfilter: nf_tables: Add missing Kernel doc netfilter: nf_tables: Correct spelling in nf_tables.h netfilter: nf_tables: drop unused 3rd argument from validate callback ops netfilter: conntrack: Convert to use ERR_CAST() netfilter: Use kmemdup_array instead of kmemdup for multiple allocation netfilter: nft_counter: Use u64_stats_t for statistic. netfilter: ctnetlink: support CTA_FILTER for flush ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2024
iter_finish_branch_entry() doesn't put the branch_info from/to map
elements creating memory leaks. This can be seen with:
```
$ perf record -e cycles -b perf test -w noploop
$ perf report -D
...
Direct leak of 984344 byte(s) in 123043 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x7fb2654f3bd7 in malloc libsanitizer/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:69
#1 0x564d3400d10b in map__get util/map.h:186
#2 0x564d3400d10b in ip__resolve_ams util/machine.c:1981
#3 0x564d34014d81 in sample__resolve_bstack util/machine.c:2151
#4 0x564d34094790 in iter_prepare_branch_entry util/hist.c:898
#5 0x564d34098fa4 in hist_entry_iter__add util/hist.c:1238
#6 0x564d33d1f0c7 in process_sample_event tools/perf/builtin-report.c:334
#7 0x564d34031eb7 in perf_session__deliver_event util/session.c:1655
#8 0x564d3403ba52 in do_flush util/ordered-events.c:245
#9 0x564d3403ba52 in __ordered_events__flush util/ordered-events.c:324
#10 0x564d3402d32e in perf_session__process_user_event util/session.c:1708
#11 0x564d34032480 in perf_session__process_event util/session.c:1877
#12 0x564d340336ad in reader__read_event util/session.c:2399
#13 0x564d34033fdc in reader__process_events util/session.c:2448
#14 0x564d34033fdc in __perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2495
#15 0x564d34033fdc in perf_session__process_events util/session.c:2661
#16 0x564d33d27113 in __cmd_report tools/perf/builtin-report.c:1065
#17 0x564d33d27113 in cmd_report tools/perf/builtin-report.c:1805
#18 0x564d33e0ccb7 in run_builtin tools/perf/perf.c:350
#19 0x564d33e0d45e in handle_internal_command tools/perf/perf.c:403
#20 0x564d33cdd827 in run_argv tools/perf/perf.c:447
#21 0x564d33cdd827 in main tools/perf/perf.c:561
...
```
Clearing up the map_symbols properly creates maps reference count
issues so resolve those. Resolving this issue doesn't improve peak
heap consumption for the test above.
Committer testing:
$ sudo dnf install libasan
$ make -k CORESIGHT=1 EXTRA_CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" CC=clang O=/tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ -C tools/perf install-bin
Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Sun Haiyong <[email protected]>
Cc: Yanteng Si <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2024
The fields in the hist_entry are filled on-demand which means they only have meaningful values when relevant sort keys are used. So if neither of 'dso' nor 'sym' sort keys are used, the map/symbols in the hist entry can be garbage. So it shouldn't access it unconditionally. I got a segfault, when I wanted to see cgroup profiles. $ sudo perf record -a --all-cgroups --synth=cgroup true $ sudo perf report -s cgroup Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00005555557a8d90 in map__dso (map=0x0) at util/map.h:48 48 return RC_CHK_ACCESS(map)->dso; (gdb) bt #0 0x00005555557a8d90 in map__dso (map=0x0) at util/map.h:48 #1 0x00005555557aa39b in map__load (map=0x0) at util/map.c:344 #2 0x00005555557aa592 in map__find_symbol (map=0x0, addr=140736115941088) at util/map.c:385 #3 0x00005555557ef000 in hists__findnew_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, entry=0x7fffffffa4c0, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sample_self=true) at util/hist.c:644 #4 0x00005555557ef61c in __hists__add_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sym_parent=0x0, bi=0x0, mi=0x0, ki=0x0, block_info=0x0, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, sample_self=true, ops=0x0) at util/hist.c:761 #5 0x00005555557ef71f in hists__add_entry (hists=0x555556039d60, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, sym_parent=0x0, bi=0x0, mi=0x0, ki=0x0, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, sample_self=true) at util/hist.c:779 #6 0x00005555557f00fb in iter_add_single_normal_entry (iter=0x7fffffffa900, al=0x7fffffffa8c0) at util/hist.c:1015 #7 0x00005555557f09a7 in hist_entry_iter__add (iter=0x7fffffffa900, al=0x7fffffffa8c0, max_stack_depth=127, arg=0x7fffffffbce0) at util/hist.c:1260 #8 0x00005555555ba7ce in process_sample_event (tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, evsel=0x555556039ad0, machine=0x5555560388e8) at builtin-report.c:334 #9 0x00005555557b30c8 in evlist__deliver_sample (evlist=0x555556039010, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, evsel=0x555556039ad0, machine=0x5555560388e8) at util/session.c:1232 #10 0x00005555557b32bc in machines__deliver_event (machines=0x5555560388e8, evlist=0x555556039010, event=0x7ffff7c14128, sample=0x7fffffffaa90, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, file_offset=110888, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1271 #11 0x00005555557b3848 in perf_session__deliver_event (session=0x5555560386d0, event=0x7ffff7c14128, tool=0x7fffffffbce0, file_offset=110888, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1354 #12 0x00005555557affaf in ordered_events__deliver_event (oe=0x555556038e60, event=0x555556135aa0) at util/session.c:132 #13 0x00005555557bb605 in do_flush (oe=0x555556038e60, show_progress=false) at util/ordered-events.c:245 #14 0x00005555557bb95c in __ordered_events__flush (oe=0x555556038e60, how=OE_FLUSH__ROUND, timestamp=0) at util/ordered-events.c:324 #15 0x00005555557bba46 in ordered_events__flush (oe=0x555556038e60, how=OE_FLUSH__ROUND) at util/ordered-events.c:342 #16 0x00005555557b1b3b in perf_event__process_finished_round (tool=0x7fffffffbce0, event=0x7ffff7c15bb8, oe=0x555556038e60) at util/session.c:780 #17 0x00005555557b3b27 in perf_session__process_user_event (session=0x5555560386d0, event=0x7ffff7c15bb8, file_offset=117688, file_path=0x555556038ff0 "perf.data") at util/session.c:1406 As you can see the entry->ms.map was NULL even if he->ms.map has a value. This is because 'sym' sort key is not given, so it cannot assume whether he->ms.sym and entry->ms.sym is the same. I only checked the 'sym' sort key here as it implies 'dso' behavior (so maps are the same). Fixes: ac01c8c ("perf hist: Update hist symbol when updating maps") Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]> Cc: Ian Rogers <[email protected]> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> Cc: Kan Liang <[email protected]> Cc: Matt Fleming <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf-rc bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 15, 2024
Daniel Machon says:
====================
net: sparx5: prepare for lan969x switch driver
== Description:
This series is the first of a multi-part series, that prepares and adds
support for the new lan969x switch driver.
The upstreaming efforts is split into multiple series (might change a
bit as we go along):
1) Prepare the Sparx5 driver for lan969x (this series)
2) Add support lan969x (same basic features as Sparx5 provides +
RGMII, excl. FDMA and VCAP)
3) Add support for lan969x FDMA
4) Add support for lan969x VCAP
== Lan969x in short:
The lan969x Ethernet switch family [1] provides a rich set of
switching features and port configurations (up to 30 ports) from 10Mbps
to 10Gbps, with support for RGMII, SGMII, QSGMII, USGMII, and USXGMII,
ideal for industrial & process automation infrastructure applications,
transport, grid automation, power substation automation, and ring &
intra-ring topologies. The LAN969x family is hardware and software
compatible and scalable supporting 46Gbps to 102Gbps switch bandwidths.
== Preparing Sparx5 for lan969x:
The lan969x switch chip reuses many of the IP's of the Sparx5 switch
chip, therefore it has been decided to add support through the existing
Sparx5 driver, in order to avoid a bunch of duplicate code. However, in
order to reuse the Sparx5 switch driver, we have to introduce some
mechanisms to handle the chip differences that are there. These
mechanisms are:
- Platform match data to contain all the differences that needs to
be handled (constants, ops etc.)
- Register macro indirection layer so that we can reuse the existing
register macros.
- Function for branching out on platform type where required.
In some places we ops out functions and in other places we branch on the
chip type. Exactly when we choose one over the other, is an estimate in
each case.
After this series is applied, the Sparx5 driver will be prepared for
lan969x and still function exactly as before.
== Patch breakdown:
Patch #1 adds private match data
Patch #2 adds register macro indirection layer
Patch #3-#4 does some preparation work
Patch #5-#7 adds chip constants and updates the code to use them
Patch #8-#13 adds and uses ops for handling functions differently on the
two platforms.
Patch #14 adds and uses a macro for branching out on the chip type.
Patch #15 (NEW) redefines macros for internal ports and PGID's.
[1] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/lan9698
To: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
To: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
To: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
To: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
To: Lars Povlsen <[email protected]>
To: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: Richard Cochran <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <[email protected]>
====================
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241004-b4-sparx5-lan969x-switch-driver-v2-0-d3290f581663@microchip.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
branch: bpf_test
base: bpf
version: 3df9d80