lwn.git/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c, branch docs-fixes

bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_DIV and BPF_MOD

2026-01-21T00:41:53+00:00

This patch implements range tracking (interval analysis) for BPF_DIV and BPF_MOD operations when the divisor is a constant, covering both signed and unsigned variants. While LLVM typically optimizes integer division and modulo by constants into multiplication and shift sequences, this optimization is less effective for the BPF target when dealing with 64-bit arithmetic. Currently, the verifier does not track bounds for scalar division or modulo, treating the result as "unbounded". This leads to false positive rejections for safe code patterns. For example, the following code (compiled with -O2): ```c int test(struct pt_regs *ctx) { char buffer[6] = {1}; __u64 x = bpf_ktime_get_ns(); __u64 res = x % sizeof(buffer); char value = buffer[res]; bpf_printk("res = %llu, val = %d", res, value); return 0; } ``` Generates a raw `BPF_MOD64` instruction: ```asm ; __u64 res = x % sizeof(buffer); 1: 97 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 r0 %= 0x6 ; char value = buffer[res]; 2: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0x0 ll 4: 0f 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 += r0 5: 91 14 00 00 00 00 00 00 r4 = *(s8 *)(r1 + 0x0) ``` Without this patch, the verifier fails with "math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed" because it cannot deduce that `r0` is within [0, 5]. According to the BPF instruction set[1], the instruction's offset field (`insn->off`) is used to distinguish between signed (`off == 1`) and unsigned division (`off == 0`). Moreover, we also follow the BPF division and modulo runtime behavior (semantics) to handle special cases, such as division by zero and signed division overflow. - UDIV: dst = (src != 0) ? (dst / src) : 0 - SDIV: dst = (src == 0) ? 0 : ((src == -1 && dst == LLONG_MIN) ? LLONG_MIN : (dst / src)) - UMOD: dst = (src != 0) ? (dst % src) : dst - SMOD: dst = (src == 0) ? dst : ((src == -1 && dst == LLONG_MIN) ? 0: (dst s% src)) Here is the overview of the changes made in this patch (See the code comments for more details and examples): 1. For BPF_DIV: Firstly check whether the divisor is zero. If so, set the destination register to zero (matching runtime behavior). For non-zero constant divisors: goto `scalar(32)?_min_max_(u|s)div` functions. - General cases: compute the new range by dividing max_dividend and min_dividend by the constant divisor. - Overflow case (SIGNED_MIN / -1) in signed division: mark the result as unbounded if the dividend is not a single number. 2. For BPF_MOD: Firstly check whether the divisor is zero. If so, leave the destination register unchanged (matching runtime behavior). For non-zero constant divisors: goto `scalar(32)?_min_max_(u|s)mod` functions. - General case: For signed modulo, the result's sign matches the dividend's sign. And the result's absolute value is strictly bounded by `min(abs(dividend), abs(divisor) - 1)`. - Special care is taken when the divisor is SIGNED_MIN. By casting to unsigned before negation and subtracting 1, we avoid signed overflow and correctly calculate the maximum possible magnitude (`res_max_abs` in the code). - "Small dividend" case: If the dividend is already within the possible result range (e.g., [-2, 5] % 10), the operation is an identity function, and the destination register remains unchanged. 3. In `scalar(32)?_min_max_(u|s)(div|mod)` functions: After updating current range, reset other ranges and tnum to unbounded/unknown. e.g., in `scalar_min_max_sdiv`, signed 64-bit range is updated. Then reset unsigned 64-bit range and 32-bit range to unbounded, and tnum to unknown. Exception: in BPF_MOD's "small dividend" case, since the result remains unchanged, we do not reset other ranges/tnum. 4. Also updated existing selftests based on the expected BPF_DIV and BPF_MOD behavior. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst Co-developed-by: Shenghao Yuan Signed-off-by: Shenghao Yuan Co-developed-by: Tianci Cao Signed-off-by: Tianci Cao Signed-off-by: Yazhou Tang Tested-by: syzbot@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260119085458.182221-2-tangyazhou@zju.edu.cn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Remove mark_precise_scalar_ids()

2024-07-29T19:53:14+00:00

Function mark_precise_scalar_ids() is superseded by bt_sync_linked_regs() and equal scalars tracking in jump history. mark_precise_scalar_ids() propagates precision over registers sharing same ID on parent/child state boundaries, while jump history records allow bt_sync_linked_regs() to propagate same information with instruction level granularity, which is strictly more precise. This commit removes mark_precise_scalar_ids() and updates test cases in progs/verifier_scalar_ids to reflect new verifier behavior. The tests are updated in the following manner: - mark_precise_scalar_ids() propagated precision regardless of presence of conditional jumps, while new jump history based logic only kicks in when conditional jumps are present. Hence test cases are augmented with conditional jumps to still trigger precision propagation. - As equal scalars tracking no longer relies on parent/child state boundaries some test cases are no longer interesting, such test cases are removed, namely: - precision_same_state and precision_cross_state are superseded by linked_regs_bpf_k; - precision_same_state_broken_link and equal_scalars_broken_link are superseded by linked_regs_broken_link. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240718202357.1746514-3-eddyz87@gmail.com

bpf: Track equal scalars history on per-instruction level

2024-07-29T19:53:10+00:00

Use bpf_verifier_state->jmp_history to track which registers were updated by find_equal_scalars() (renamed to collect_linked_regs()) when conditional jump was verified. Use recorded information in backtrack_insn() to propagate precision. E.g. for the following program: while verifying instructions 1: r1 = r0 | 2: if r1 < 8 goto ... | push r0,r1 as linked registers in jmp_history 3: if r0 > 16 goto ... | push r0,r1 as linked registers in jmp_history 4: r2 = r10 | 5: r2 += r0 v mark_chain_precision(r0) while doing mark_chain_precision(r0) 5: r2 += r0 | mark r0 precise 4: r2 = r10 | 3: if r0 > 16 goto ... | mark r0,r1 as precise 2: if r1 < 8 goto ... | mark r0,r1 as precise 1: r1 = r0 v Technically, do this as follows: - Use 10 bits to identify each register that gains range because of sync_linked_regs(): - 3 bits for frame number; - 6 bits for register or stack slot number; - 1 bit to indicate if register is spilled. - Use u64 as a vector of 6 such records + 4 bits for vector length. - Augment struct bpf_jmp_history_entry with a field 'linked_regs' representing such vector. - When doing check_cond_jmp_op() remember up to 6 registers that gain range because of sync_linked_regs() in such a vector. - Don't propagate range information and reset IDs for registers that don't fit in 6-value vector. - Push a pair {instruction index, linked registers vector} to bpf_verifier_state->jmp_history. - When doing backtrack_insn() check if any of recorded linked registers is currently marked precise, if so mark all linked registers as precise. This also requires fixes for two test_verifier tests: - precise: test 1 - precise: test 2 Both tests contain the following instruction sequence: 19: (bf) r2 = r9 ; R2=scalar(id=3) R9=scalar(id=3) 20: (a5) if r2 < 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2=scalar(id=3,umin=8) 21: (95) exit 22: (07) r2 += 1 ; R2_w=scalar(id=3+1,...) 23: (bf) r1 = r10 ; R1_w=fp0 R10=fp0 24: (07) r1 += -8 ; R1_w=fp-8 25: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=0 26: (85) call bpf_probe_read_kernel#113 The call to bpf_probe_read_kernel() at (26) forces r2 to be precise. Previously, this forced all registers with same id to become precise immediately when mark_chain_precision() is called. After this change, the precision is propagated to registers sharing same id only when 'if' instruction is backtracked. Hence verification log for both tests is changed: regs=r2,r9 -> regs=r2 for instructions 25..20. Fixes: 904e6ddf4133 ("bpf: Use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision()") Reported-by: Hao Sun Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240718202357.1746514-2-eddyz87@gmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZ0xidVCqB47XnkXcNhkPWF6_nTV7yt+_Lf0kcFEut2Mg@mail.gmail.com/

bpf: Track delta between "linked" registers.

2024-06-14T19:52:39+00:00

Compilers can generate the code r1 = r2 r1 += 0x1 if r2 < 1000 goto ... use knowledge of r2 range in subsequent r1 operations So remember constant delta between r2 and r1 and update r1 after 'if' condition. Unfortunately LLVM still uses this pattern for loops with 'can_loop' construct: for (i = 0; i < 1000 && can_loop; i++) The "undo" pass was introduced in LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D121937 to prevent this optimization, but it cannot cover all cases. Instead of fighting middle end optimizer in BPF backend teach the verifier about this pattern. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240613013815.953-3-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com

bpf: Assign ID to scalars on spill

2024-01-23T22:40:23+00:00

Currently, when a scalar bounded register is spilled to the stack, its ID is preserved, but only if was already assigned, i.e. if this register was MOVed before. Assign an ID on spill if none is set, so that equal scalars could be tracked if a register is spilled to the stack and filled into another register. One test is adjusted to reflect the change in register IDs. Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240108205209.838365-9-maxtram95@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking

2023-12-05T21:40:20+00:00

Use instruction (jump) history to record instructions that performed register spill/fill to/from stack, regardless if this was done through read-only r10 register, or any other register after copying r10 into it *and* potentially adjusting offset. To make this work reliably, we push extra per-instruction flags into instruction history, encoding stack slot index (spi) and stack frame number in extra 10 bit flags we take away from prev_idx in instruction history. We don't touch idx field for maximum performance, as it's checked most frequently during backtracking. This change removes basically the last remaining practical limitation of precision backtracking logic in BPF verifier. It fixes known deficiencies, but also opens up new opportunities to reduce number of verified states, explored in the subsequent patches. There are only three differences in selftests' BPF object files according to veristat, all in the positive direction (less states). File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF) -------------------------------------- ------------- --------- --------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- test_cls_redirect_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o cls_redirect 2987 2864 -123 (-4.12%) 240 231 -9 (-3.75%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_tc 82848 82661 -187 (-0.23%) 5107 5073 -34 (-0.67%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_xdp 85116 84964 -152 (-0.18%) 5162 5130 -32 (-0.62%) Note, I avoided renaming jmp_history to more generic insn_hist to minimize number of lines changed and potential merge conflicts between bpf and bpf-next trees. Notice also cur_hist_entry pointer reset to NULL at the beginning of instruction verification loop. This pointer avoids the problem of relying on last jump history entry's insn_idx to determine whether we already have entry for current instruction or not. It can happen that we added jump history entry because current instruction is_jmp_point(), but also we need to add instruction flags for stack access. In this case, we don't want to entries, so we need to reuse last added entry, if it is present. Relying on insn_idx comparison has the same ambiguity problem as the one that was fixed recently in [0], so we avoid that. [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231110002638.4168352-3-andrii@kernel.org/ Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Reported-by: Tao Lyu Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205184248.1502704-2-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

selftests/bpf: Add F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to some tests

2023-07-05T12:34:23+00:00

Some verifier tests were missing F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which made the test fail. Add the flag where needed. Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230705113926.751791-2-bjorn@kernel.org

bpf: Use scalar ids in mark_chain_precision()

2023-06-13T22:14:27+00:00

Change mark_chain_precision() to track precision in situations like below: r2 = unknown value ... --- state #0 --- ... r1 = r2 // r1 and r2 now share the same ID ... --- state #1 {r1.id = A, r2.id = A} --- ... if (r2 > 10) goto exit; // find_equal_scalars() assigns range to r1 ... --- state #2 {r1.id = A, r2.id = A} --- r3 = r10 r3 += r1 // need to mark both r1 and r2 At the beginning of the processing of each state, ensure that if a register with a scalar ID is marked as precise, all registers sharing this ID are also marked as precise. This property would be used by a follow-up change in regsafe(). Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230613153824.3324830-2-eddyz87@gmail.com

bpf: fix mark_all_scalars_precise use in mark_chain_precision

2023-05-05T05:35:35+00:00

When precision backtracking bails out due to some unsupported sequence of instructions (e.g., stack access through register other than r10), we need to mark all SCALAR registers as precise to be safe. Currently, though, we mark SCALARs precise only starting from the state we detected unsupported condition, which could be one of the parent states of the actual current state. This will leave some registers potentially not marked as precise, even though they should. So make sure we start marking scalars as precise from current state (env->cur_state). Further, we don't currently detect a situation when we end up with some stack slots marked as needing precision, but we ran out of available states to find the instructions that populate those stack slots. This is akin the `i >= func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE` check and should be handled similarly by falling back to marking all SCALARs precise. Add this check when we run out of states. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230505043317.3629845-8-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: maintain bitmasks across all active frames in __mark_chain_precision

2023-05-05T05:35:35+00:00

Teach __mark_chain_precision logic to maintain register/stack masks across all active frames when going from child state to parent state. Currently this should be mostly no-op, as precision backtracking usually bails out when encountering subprog entry/exit. It's not very apparent from the diff due to increased indentation, but the logic remains the same, except everything is done on specific `fr` frame index. Calls to bt_clear_reg() and bt_clear_slot() are replaced with frame-specific bt_clear_frame_reg() and bt_clear_frame_slot(), where frame index is passed explicitly, instead of using current frame number. We also adjust logging to emit affected frame number. And we also add better logging of human-readable register and stack slot masks, similar to previous patch. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230505043317.3629845-6-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov