Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 08/21/2017 10:44 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 21/08/17 21:27, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 08/21/2017 08:36 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> > > On 19/08/17 00:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm tempted to just rip out env->varlen_map_value_access and always check
> > >    the whole thing, because honestly I don't know what it was meant to do
> > >    originally or how it can ever do any useful pruning.  While drastic, it
> > >    does cause your test case to pass.
> >
> > Original intention from 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map
> > value arrays") was that it wouldn't potentially make pruning worse
> > if PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ was not used, meaning that we wouldn't need
> > to take reg state's min_value and max_value into account for state
> > checking; this was basically due to min_value / max_value is being
> > adjusted/tracked on every alu/jmp ops for involved regs (e.g.
> > adjust_reg_min_max_vals() and others that mangle them) even if we
> > have the case that no actual dynamic map access is used throughout
> > the program. To give an example on net tree, the bpf_lxc.o prog's
> > section increases from 36,386 to 68,226 when env->varlen_map_value_access
> > is always true, so it does have an effect. Did you do some checks
> > on this on net-next?
> I tested with the cilium progs and saw no change in insn count.  I
>   suspect that for the normal case I already killed this optimisation
>   when I did my unification patch, it was previously about ignoring
>   min/max values on all regs (including scalars), whereas on net-next
>   it only ignores them on map_value pointers; in practice this is
>   useless because we tend to still have the offset scalar sitting in
>   a register somewhere.  (Come to think of it, this may have been
>   behind a large chunk of the #insn increase that my patches caused.)

Yeah, this would seem plausible.

> Since we use umax_value in find_good_pkt_pointers() now (to check
>   against MAX_PACKET_OFF and ensure our reg->range is really ok), we
>   can't just stop caring about all min/max values just because we
>   haven't done any variable map accesses.
> I don't see a way around this.

Agree, was thinking the same. If there's not really a regression in
terms of complexity, then lets kill the flag.