Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/16] bpf: add eBPF verifier

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Safety of eBPF programs is statically determined by the verifier, which detects:
>>>>>> - loops
>>>>>> - out of range jumps
>>>>>> - unreachable instructions
>>>>>> - invalid instructions
>>>>>> - uninitialized register access
>>>>>> - uninitialized stack access
>>>>>> - misaligned stack access
>>>>>> - out of range stack access
>>>>>> - invalid calling convention
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something that documents exactly what conditions an eBPF
>>>>> program must satisfy in order to be considered valid?
>>>>
>>>> I did a writeup in the past on things that verifiers checks and gave it
>>>> to internal folks to review. Guys have said that now they understand very
>>>> well how it works, but in reality it didn't help at all to write valid programs.
>>>> What worked is 'verification trace' = the instruction by instruction dump
>>>> of verifier state while it's analyzing the program.
>>>> I gave few simple examples of it in
>>>> 'Understanding eBPF verifier messages' section:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ast/bpf.git/diff/Documentation/networking/filter.txt?id=b22459133b9f52d2176c8c0f8b5eb036478a40c9
>>>> Every example there is what "program must satisfy to be valid"...
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I'm addressing two things:
>>>> 1. how verifier works and what it checks for.
>>>>   that is described in 'eBPF verifier' section of the doc and
>>>>   in 200 lines of comments inside verifier.c
>>>
>>> That doc is pretty good.  I'll try to read it carefully soon.  Sorry
>>> for the huge delay here -- I've been on vacation.
>>
>> I've been sitting on v4 for few weeks, since it's a merge window.
>> So please hold on a careful review. I'll post v4 later today.
>> Mainly I've split the verifier into several patches to make it
>> easier to read.
>> Thanks!
>
> Will you be at KS / LSS / LinuxCon?

I would love to, but I didn't get an invite for KS.
I'll be at plumbers in October.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/