From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 20:33:17 +0000 (+0200) Subject: bpf, verifier: further improve search pruning X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=07016151a446d25397b24588df4ed5cf777a69bb;p=GitHub%2FLineageOS%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git bpf, verifier: further improve search pruning The verifier needs to go through every path of the program in order to check that it terminates safely, which can be quite a lot of instructions that need to be processed f.e. in cases with more branchy programs. With search pruning from f1bca824dabb ("bpf: add search pruning optimization to verifier") the search space can already be reduced significantly when the verifier detects that a previously walked path with same register and stack contents terminated already (see verifier's states_equal()), so the search can skip walking those states. When working with larger programs of > ~2000 (out of max 4096) insns, we found that the current limit of 32k instructions is easily hit. For example, a case we ran into is that the search space cannot be pruned due to branches at the beginning of the program that make use of certain stack space slots (STACK_MISC), which are never used in the remaining program (STACK_INVALID). Therefore, the verifier needs to walk paths for the slots in STACK_INVALID state, but also all remaining paths with a stack structure, where the slots are in STACK_MISC, which can nearly double the search space needed. After various experiments, we find that a limit of 64k processed insns is a more reasonable choice when dealing with larger programs in practice. This still allows to reject extreme crafted cases that can have a much higher complexity (f.e. > ~300k) within the 4096 insns limit due to search pruning not being able to take effect. Furthermore, we found that a lot of states can be pruned after a call instruction, f.e. we were able to reduce the search state by ~35% in some cases with this heuristic, trade-off is to keep a bit more states in env->explored_states. Usually, call instructions have a number of preceding register assignments and/or stack stores, where search pruning has a better chance to suceed in states_equal() test. The current code marks the branch targets with STATE_LIST_MARK in case of conditional jumps, and the next (t + 1) instruction in case of unconditional jump so that f.e. a backjump will walk it. We also did experiments with using t + insns[t].off + 1 as a marker in the unconditionally jump case instead of t + 1 with the rationale that these two branches of execution that converge after the label might have more potential of pruning. We found that it was a bit better, but not necessarily significantly better than the current state, perhaps also due to clang not generating back jumps often. Hence, we left that as is for now. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 58792fed5678..8233021538d3 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct verifier_env { bool allow_ptr_leaks; }; +#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 65536 +#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK 1024 + /* verbose verifier prints what it's seeing * bpf_check() is called under lock, so no race to access these global vars */ @@ -454,7 +457,7 @@ static struct verifier_state *push_stack(struct verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, elem->next = env->head; env->head = elem; env->stack_size++; - if (env->stack_size > 1024) { + if (env->stack_size > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK) { verbose("BPF program is too complex\n"); goto err; } @@ -1543,6 +1546,8 @@ peek_stack: goto peek_stack; else if (ret < 0) goto err_free; + if (t + 1 < insn_cnt) + env->explored_states[t + 1] = STATE_LIST_MARK; } else if (opcode == BPF_JA) { if (BPF_SRC(insns[t].code) != BPF_K) { ret = -EINVAL; @@ -1747,7 +1752,7 @@ static int do_check(struct verifier_env *env) insn = &insns[insn_idx]; class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code); - if (++insn_processed > 32768) { + if (++insn_processed > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS) { verbose("BPF program is too large. Proccessed %d insn\n", insn_processed); return -E2BIG;