|
Add range tracking for instruction BPF_NEG. Without this logic, a trivial
program like the following will fail
volatile bool found_value_b;
SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
int BPF_PROG(test_socket_connect)
{
if (!found_value_b)
return -1;
return 0;
}
with verifier log:
"At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=4294967295 should have
been in [-4095, 0]".
This is because range information is lost in BPF_NEG:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; if (!found_value_b) @ xxxx.c:24
0: (18) r1 = 0xffa00000011e7048 ; R1_w=map_value(...)
2: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0) ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
3: (a4) w0 ^= 1 ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
4: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0_w=scalar(range info lost)
Note that, the log above is manually modified to highlight relevant bits.
Fix this by maintaining proper range information with BPF_NEG, so that
the verifier will know:
4: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=-255,smax=0)
Also updated selftests based on the expected behavior.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250625164025.3310203-2-song@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
|
