Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/7] bpf: teach the verifier to enforce css_iter and task_iter in RCU CS

[Yafang Shao]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 6:56 PM Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> css_iter and task_iter should be used in rcu section. Specifically, in
> sleepable progs explicit bpf_rcu_read_lock() is needed before use these
> iters. In normal bpf progs that have implicit rcu_read_lock(), it's OK to
> use them directly.
>
> This patch adds a new a KF flag KF_RCU_PROTECTED for bpf_iter_task_new and
> bpf_iter_css_new. It means the kfunc should be used in RCU CS. We check
> whether we are in rcu cs before we want to invoke this kfunc. If the rcu
> protection is guaranteed, we would let st->type = PTR_TO_STACK | MEM_RCU.
> Once user do rcu_unlock during the iteration, state MEM_RCU of regs would
> be cleared. is_iter_reg_valid_init() will reject if reg->type is UNTRUSTED.
>
> It is worth noting that currently, bpf_rcu_read_unlock does not
> clear the state of the STACK_ITER reg, since bpf_for_each_spilled_reg
> only considers STACK_SPILL. This patch also let bpf_for_each_spilled_reg
> search STACK_ITER.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This patch should be ahead of patch #2 and you introduce
KF_RCU_PROTECTED in it then use this flag in later patches.
BTW, I can't apply your series on bpf-next. I think you should rebase
it on the latest bpf-next, otherwise the BPF CI can't be triggered.

> ---
>  include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 19 ++++++++------
>  include/linux/btf.h          |  1 +
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c         |  4 +--
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> index a3236651ec64..b5cdcc332b0a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> @@ -385,19 +385,18 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
>         u32 jmp_history_cnt;
>  };
>
> -#define bpf_get_spilled_reg(slot, frame)                               \
> +#define bpf_get_spilled_reg(slot, frame, mask)                         \
>         (((slot < frame->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE) &&             \
> -         (frame->stack[slot].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL))             \
> +         ((1 << frame->stack[slot].slot_type[0]) & (mask))) \
>          ? &frame->stack[slot].spilled_ptr : NULL)
>
>  /* Iterate over 'frame', setting 'reg' to either NULL or a spilled register. */
> -#define bpf_for_each_spilled_reg(iter, frame, reg)                     \
> -       for (iter = 0, reg = bpf_get_spilled_reg(iter, frame);          \
> +#define bpf_for_each_spilled_reg(iter, frame, reg, mask)                       \
> +       for (iter = 0, reg = bpf_get_spilled_reg(iter, frame, mask);            \
>              iter < frame->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE;              \
> -            iter++, reg = bpf_get_spilled_reg(iter, frame))
> +            iter++, reg = bpf_get_spilled_reg(iter, frame, mask))
>
> -/* Invoke __expr over regsiters in __vst, setting __state and __reg */
> -#define bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate(__vst, __state, __reg, __expr)   \
> +#define bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate_mask(__vst, __state, __reg, __mask, __expr)   \
>         ({                                                               \
>                 struct bpf_verifier_state *___vstate = __vst;            \
>                 int ___i, ___j;                                          \
> @@ -409,7 +408,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
>                                 __reg = &___regs[___j];                  \
>                                 (void)(__expr);                          \
>                         }                                                \
> -                       bpf_for_each_spilled_reg(___j, __state, __reg) { \
> +                       bpf_for_each_spilled_reg(___j, __state, __reg, __mask) { \
>                                 if (!__reg)                              \
>                                         continue;                        \
>                                 (void)(__expr);                          \
> @@ -417,6 +416,10 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
>                 }                                                        \
>         })
>
> +/* Invoke __expr over regsiters in __vst, setting __state and __reg */
> +#define bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate(__vst, __state, __reg, __expr) \
> +       bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate_mask(__vst, __state, __reg, 1 << STACK_SPILL, __expr)
> +
>  /* linked list of verifier states used to prune search */
>  struct bpf_verifier_state_list {
>         struct bpf_verifier_state state;
> diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
> index 928113a80a95..c2231c64d60b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf.h
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@
>  #define KF_ITER_NEW     (1 << 8) /* kfunc implements BPF iter constructor */
>  #define KF_ITER_NEXT    (1 << 9) /* kfunc implements BPF iter next method */
>  #define KF_ITER_DESTROY (1 << 10) /* kfunc implements BPF iter destructor */
> +#define KF_RCU_PROTECTED (1 << 11) /* kfunc should be protected by rcu cs when they are invoked */
>
>  /*
>   * Tag marking a kernel function as a kfunc. This is meant to minimize the
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 9c3af36249a2..aa9e03fbfe1a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -2507,10 +2507,10 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_num_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_task_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_task_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_task_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_task_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_task_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_RCU_PROTECTED)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_task_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_task_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> -BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_TRUSTED_ARGS | KF_RCU_PROTECTED)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_css_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_dynptr_adjust)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 2367483bf4c2..a065e18a0b3a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -1172,7 +1172,12 @@ static bool is_dynptr_type_expected(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg
>
>  static void __mark_reg_known_zero(struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
>
> +static bool in_rcu_cs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env);
> +
> +static bool is_kfunc_rcu_protected(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta);
> +
>  static int mark_stack_slots_iter(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +                                struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta,
>                                  struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int insn_idx,
>                                  struct btf *btf, u32 btf_id, int nr_slots)
>  {
> @@ -1193,6 +1198,12 @@ static int mark_stack_slots_iter(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>
>                 __mark_reg_known_zero(st);
>                 st->type = PTR_TO_STACK; /* we don't have dedicated reg type */
> +               if (is_kfunc_rcu_protected(meta)) {
> +                       if (in_rcu_cs(env))
> +                               st->type |= MEM_RCU;

I think this change is incorrect.  The type of st->type is enum
bpf_reg_type, but MEM_RCU is enum bpf_type_flag.
Or am I missing something?

> +                       else
> +                               st->type |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;
> +               }
>                 st->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
>                 st->ref_obj_id = i == 0 ? id : 0;
>                 st->iter.btf = btf;
> @@ -1267,7 +1278,7 @@ static bool is_iter_reg_valid_uninit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>         return true;
>  }
>
> -static bool is_iter_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> +static int is_iter_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
>                                    struct btf *btf, u32 btf_id, int nr_slots)
>  {
>         struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
> @@ -1275,26 +1286,28 @@ static bool is_iter_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_
>
>         spi = iter_get_spi(env, reg, nr_slots);
>         if (spi < 0)
> -               return false;
> +               return -EINVAL;
>
>         for (i = 0; i < nr_slots; i++) {
>                 struct bpf_stack_state *slot = &state->stack[spi - i];
>                 struct bpf_reg_state *st = &slot->spilled_ptr;
>
> +               if (st->type & PTR_UNTRUSTED)
> +                       return -EPERM;
>                 /* only main (first) slot has ref_obj_id set */
>                 if (i == 0 && !st->ref_obj_id)
> -                       return false;
> +                       return -EINVAL;
>                 if (i != 0 && st->ref_obj_id)
> -                       return false;
> +                       return -EINVAL;
>                 if (st->iter.btf != btf || st->iter.btf_id != btf_id)
> -                       return false;
> +                       return -EINVAL;
>
>                 for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_SIZE; j++)
>                         if (slot->slot_type[j] != STACK_ITER)
> -                               return false;
> +                               return -EINVAL;
>         }
>
> -       return true;
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  /* Check if given stack slot is "special":
> @@ -7503,15 +7516,20 @@ static int process_iter_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, int insn_id
>                                 return err;
>                 }
>
> -               err = mark_stack_slots_iter(env, reg, insn_idx, meta->btf, btf_id, nr_slots);
> +               err = mark_stack_slots_iter(env, meta, reg, insn_idx, meta->btf, btf_id, nr_slots);
>                 if (err)
>                         return err;
>         } else {
>                 /* iter_next() or iter_destroy() expect initialized iter state*/
> -               if (!is_iter_reg_valid_init(env, reg, meta->btf, btf_id, nr_slots)) {
> -                       verbose(env, "expected an initialized iter_%s as arg #%d\n",
> +               err = is_iter_reg_valid_init(env, reg, meta->btf, btf_id, nr_slots);
> +               switch (err) {
> +               case -EINVAL:
> +                       verbose(env, "expected an initialized iter_%s as arg #%d or without bpf_rcu_read_lock()\n",
>                                 iter_type_str(meta->btf, btf_id), regno);
> -                       return -EINVAL;
> +                       return err;
> +               case -EPERM:
> +                       verbose(env, "expected an RCU CS when using %s\n", meta->func_name);
> +                       return err;
>                 }
>
>                 spi = iter_get_spi(env, reg, nr_slots);
> @@ -10092,6 +10110,11 @@ static bool is_kfunc_rcu(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta)
>         return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_RCU;
>  }
>
> +static bool is_kfunc_rcu_protected(struct bpf_kfunc_call_arg_meta *meta)
> +{
> +       return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_RCU_PROTECTED;
> +}
> +
>  static bool __kfunc_param_match_suffix(const struct btf *btf,
>                                        const struct btf_param *arg,
>                                        const char *suffix)
> @@ -11428,6 +11451,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>         if (env->cur_state->active_rcu_lock) {
>                 struct bpf_func_state *state;
>                 struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
> +               u32 clear_mask = (1 << STACK_SPILL) | (1 << STACK_ITER);
>
>                 if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env) && (rcu_lock || rcu_unlock)) {
>                         verbose(env, "Calling bpf_rcu_read_{lock,unlock} in unnecessary rbtree callback\n");
> @@ -11438,7 +11462,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>                         verbose(env, "nested rcu read lock (kernel function %s)\n", func_name);
>                         return -EINVAL;
>                 } else if (rcu_unlock) {
> -                       bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate(env->cur_state, state, reg, ({
> +                       bpf_for_each_reg_in_vstate_mask(env->cur_state, state, reg, clear_mask, ({
>                                 if (reg->type & MEM_RCU) {
>                                         reg->type &= ~(MEM_RCU | PTR_MAYBE_NULL);
>                                         reg->type |= PTR_UNTRUSTED;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>


-- 
Regards
Yafang