diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/index.rst | 9 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst | 467 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst | 529 |
3 files changed, 1000 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/index.rst b/Documentation/bpf/index.rst index 413f50101eca..91ba5a62026b 100644 --- a/Documentation/bpf/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/bpf/index.rst @@ -5,16 +5,15 @@ BPF Documentation This directory contains documentation for the BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) facility, with a focus on the extended BPF version (eBPF). -This kernel side documentation is still work in progress. The main -textual documentation is (for historical reasons) described in -:ref:`networking-filter`, which describe both classical and extended -BPF instruction-set. +This kernel side documentation is still work in progress. The Cilium project also maintains a `BPF and XDP Reference Guide`_ that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture. .. toctree:: :maxdepth: 1 + instruction-set + verifier libbpf/index btf faq @@ -34,4 +33,4 @@ that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture. * :ref:`genindex` .. Links: -.. _BPF and XDP Reference Guide: https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/bpf/
\ No newline at end of file +.. _BPF and XDP Reference Guide: https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/bpf/ diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fa7cba59031e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@ + +==================== +eBPF Instruction Set +==================== + +eBPF is designed to be JITed with one to one mapping, which can also open up +the possibility for GCC/LLVM compilers to generate optimized eBPF code through +an eBPF backend that performs almost as fast as natively compiled code. + +Some core changes of the eBPF format from classic BPF: + +- Number of registers increase from 2 to 10: + + The old format had two registers A and X, and a hidden frame pointer. The + new layout extends this to be 10 internal registers and a read-only frame + pointer. Since 64-bit CPUs are passing arguments to functions via registers + the number of args from eBPF program to in-kernel function is restricted + to 5 and one register is used to accept return value from an in-kernel + function. Natively, x86_64 passes first 6 arguments in registers, aarch64/ + sparcv9/mips64 have 7 - 8 registers for arguments; x86_64 has 6 callee saved + registers, and aarch64/sparcv9/mips64 have 11 or more callee saved registers. + + Therefore, eBPF calling convention is defined as: + + * R0 - return value from in-kernel function, and exit value for eBPF program + * R1 - R5 - arguments from eBPF program to in-kernel function + * R6 - R9 - callee saved registers that in-kernel function will preserve + * R10 - read-only frame pointer to access stack + + Thus, all eBPF registers map one to one to HW registers on x86_64, aarch64, + etc, and eBPF calling convention maps directly to ABIs used by the kernel on + 64-bit architectures. + + On 32-bit architectures JIT may map programs that use only 32-bit arithmetic + and may let more complex programs to be interpreted. + + R0 - R5 are scratch registers and eBPF program needs spill/fill them if + necessary across calls. Note that there is only one eBPF program (== one + eBPF main routine) and it cannot call other eBPF functions, it can only + call predefined in-kernel functions, though. + +- Register width increases from 32-bit to 64-bit: + + Still, the semantics of the original 32-bit ALU operations are preserved + via 32-bit subregisters. All eBPF registers are 64-bit with 32-bit lower + subregisters that zero-extend into 64-bit if they are being written to. + That behavior maps directly to x86_64 and arm64 subregister definition, but + makes other JITs more difficult. + + 32-bit architectures run 64-bit eBPF programs via interpreter. + Their JITs may convert BPF programs that only use 32-bit subregisters into + native instruction set and let the rest being interpreted. + + Operation is 64-bit, because on 64-bit architectures, pointers are also + 64-bit wide, and we want to pass 64-bit values in/out of kernel functions, + so 32-bit eBPF registers would otherwise require to define register-pair + ABI, thus, there won't be able to use a direct eBPF register to HW register + mapping and JIT would need to do combine/split/move operations for every + register in and out of the function, which is complex, bug prone and slow. + Another reason is the use of atomic 64-bit counters. + +- Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through: + + While the original design has constructs such as ``if (cond) jump_true; + else jump_false;``, they are being replaced into alternative constructs like + ``if (cond) jump_true; /* else fall-through */``. + +- Introduces bpf_call insn and register passing convention for zero overhead + calls from/to other kernel functions: + + Before an in-kernel function call, the eBPF program needs to + place function arguments into R1 to R5 registers to satisfy calling + convention, then the interpreter will take them from registers and pass + to in-kernel function. If R1 - R5 registers are mapped to CPU registers + that are used for argument passing on given architecture, the JIT compiler + doesn't need to emit extra moves. Function arguments will be in the correct + registers and BPF_CALL instruction will be JITed as single 'call' HW + instruction. This calling convention was picked to cover common call + situations without performance penalty. + + After an in-kernel function call, R1 - R5 are reset to unreadable and R0 has + a return value of the function. Since R6 - R9 are callee saved, their state + is preserved across the call. + + For example, consider three C functions:: + + u64 f1() { return (*_f2)(1); } + u64 f2(u64 a) { return f3(a + 1, a); } + u64 f3(u64 a, u64 b) { return a - b; } + + GCC can compile f1, f3 into x86_64:: + + f1: + movl $1, %edi + movq _f2(%rip), %rax + jmp *%rax + f3: + movq %rdi, %rax + subq %rsi, %rax + ret + + Function f2 in eBPF may look like:: + + f2: + bpf_mov R2, R1 + bpf_add R1, 1 + bpf_call f3 + bpf_exit + + If f2 is JITed and the pointer stored to ``_f2``. The calls f1 -> f2 -> f3 and + returns will be seamless. Without JIT, __bpf_prog_run() interpreter needs to + be used to call into f2. + + For practical reasons all eBPF programs have only one argument 'ctx' which is + already placed into R1 (e.g. on __bpf_prog_run() startup) and the programs + can call kernel functions with up to 5 arguments. Calls with 6 or more arguments + are currently not supported, but these restrictions can be lifted if necessary + in the future. + + On 64-bit architectures all register map to HW registers one to one. For + example, x86_64 JIT compiler can map them as ... + + :: + + R0 - rax + R1 - rdi + R2 - rsi + R3 - rdx + R4 - rcx + R5 - r8 + R6 - rbx + R7 - r13 + R8 - r14 + R9 - r15 + R10 - rbp + + ... since x86_64 ABI mandates rdi, rsi, rdx, rcx, r8, r9 for argument passing + and rbx, r12 - r15 are callee saved. + + Then the following eBPF pseudo-program:: + + bpf_mov R6, R1 /* save ctx */ + bpf_mov R2, 2 + bpf_mov R3, 3 + bpf_mov R4, 4 + bpf_mov R5, 5 + bpf_call foo + bpf_mov R7, R0 /* save foo() return value */ + bpf_mov R1, R6 /* restore ctx for next call */ + bpf_mov R2, 6 + bpf_mov R3, 7 + bpf_mov R4, 8 + bpf_mov R5, 9 + bpf_call bar + bpf_add R0, R7 + bpf_exit + + After JIT to x86_64 may look like:: + + push %rbp + mov %rsp,%rbp + sub $0x228,%rsp + mov %rbx,-0x228(%rbp) + mov %r13,-0x220(%rbp) + mov %rdi,%rbx + mov $0x2,%esi + mov $0x3,%edx + mov $0x4,%ecx + mov $0x5,%r8d + callq foo + mov %rax,%r13 + mov %rbx,%rdi + mov $0x6,%esi + mov $0x7,%edx + mov $0x8,%ecx + mov $0x9,%r8d + callq bar + add %r13,%rax + mov -0x228(%rbp),%rbx + mov -0x220(%rbp),%r13 + leaveq + retq + + Which is in this example equivalent in C to:: + + u64 bpf_filter(u64 ctx) + { + return foo(ctx, 2, 3, 4, 5) + bar(ctx, 6, 7, 8, 9); + } + + In-kernel functions foo() and bar() with prototype: u64 (*)(u64 arg1, u64 + arg2, u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5); will receive arguments in proper + registers and place their return value into ``%rax`` which is R0 in eBPF. + Prologue and epilogue are emitted by JIT and are implicit in the + interpreter. R0-R5 are scratch registers, so eBPF program needs to preserve + them across the calls as defined by calling convention. + + For example the following program is invalid:: + + bpf_mov R1, 1 + bpf_call foo + bpf_mov R0, R1 + bpf_exit + + After the call the registers R1-R5 contain junk values and cannot be read. + An in-kernel `eBPF verifier`_ is used to validate eBPF programs. + +Also in the new design, eBPF is limited to 4096 insns, which means that any +program will terminate quickly and will only call a fixed number of kernel +functions. Original BPF and eBPF are two operand instructions, +which helps to do one-to-one mapping between eBPF insn and x86 insn during JIT. + +The input context pointer for invoking the interpreter function is generic, +its content is defined by a specific use case. For seccomp register R1 points +to seccomp_data, for converted BPF filters R1 points to a skb. + +A program, that is translated internally consists of the following elements:: + + op:16, jt:8, jf:8, k:32 ==> op:8, dst_reg:4, src_reg:4, off:16, imm:32 + +So far 87 eBPF instructions were implemented. 8-bit 'op' opcode field +has room for new instructions. Some of them may use 16/24/32 byte encoding. New +instructions must be multiple of 8 bytes to preserve backward compatibility. + +eBPF is a general purpose RISC instruction set. Not every register and +every instruction are used during translation from original BPF to eBPF. +For example, socket filters are not using ``exclusive add`` instruction, but +tracing filters may do to maintain counters of events, for example. Register R9 +is not used by socket filters either, but more complex filters may be running +out of registers and would have to resort to spill/fill to stack. + +eBPF can be used as a generic assembler for last step performance +optimizations, socket filters and seccomp are using it as assembler. Tracing +filters may use it as assembler to generate code from kernel. In kernel usage +may not be bounded by security considerations, since generated eBPF code +may be optimizing internal code path and not being exposed to the user space. +Safety of eBPF can come from the `eBPF verifier`_. In such use cases as +described, it may be used as safe instruction set. + +Just like the original BPF, eBPF runs within a controlled environment, +is deterministic and the kernel can easily prove that. The safety of the program +can be determined in two steps: first step does depth-first-search to disallow +loops and other CFG validation; second step starts from the first insn and +descends all possible paths. It simulates execution of every insn and observes +the state change of registers and stack. + +eBPF opcode encoding +==================== + +eBPF is reusing most of the opcode encoding from classic to simplify conversion +of classic BPF to eBPF. For arithmetic and jump instructions the 8-bit 'code' +field is divided into three parts:: + + +----------------+--------+--------------------+ + | 4 bits | 1 bit | 3 bits | + | operation code | source | instruction class | + +----------------+--------+--------------------+ + (MSB) (LSB) + +Three LSB bits store instruction class which is one of: + + =================== =============== + Classic BPF classes eBPF classes + =================== =============== + BPF_LD 0x00 BPF_LD 0x00 + BPF_LDX 0x01 BPF_LDX 0x01 + BPF_ST 0x02 BPF_ST 0x02 + BPF_STX 0x03 BPF_STX 0x03 + BPF_ALU 0x04 BPF_ALU 0x04 + BPF_JMP 0x05 BPF_JMP 0x05 + BPF_RET 0x06 BPF_JMP32 0x06 + BPF_MISC 0x07 BPF_ALU64 0x07 + =================== =============== + +When BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU or BPF_JMP, 4th bit encodes source operand ... + + :: + + BPF_K 0x00 + BPF_X 0x08 + + * in classic BPF, this means:: + + BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X - use register X as source operand + BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K - use 32-bit immediate as source operand + + * in eBPF, this means:: + + BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_X - use 'src_reg' register as source operand + BPF_SRC(code) == BPF_K - use 32-bit immediate as source operand + +... and four MSB bits store operation code. + +If BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_ALU or BPF_ALU64 [ in eBPF ], BPF_OP(code) is one of:: + + BPF_ADD 0x00 + BPF_SUB 0x10 + BPF_MUL 0x20 + BPF_DIV 0x30 + BPF_OR 0x40 + BPF_AND 0x50 + BPF_LSH 0x60 + BPF_RSH 0x70 + BPF_NEG 0x80 + BPF_MOD 0x90 + BPF_XOR 0xa0 + BPF_MOV 0xb0 /* eBPF only: mov reg to reg */ + BPF_ARSH 0xc0 /* eBPF only: sign extending shift right */ + BPF_END 0xd0 /* eBPF only: endianness conversion */ + +If BPF_CLASS(code) == BPF_JMP or BPF_JMP32 [ in eBPF ], BPF_OP(code) is one of:: + + BPF_JA 0x00 /* BPF_JMP only */ + BPF_JEQ 0x10 + BPF_JGT 0x20 + BPF_JGE 0x30 + BPF_JSET 0x40 + BPF_JNE 0x50 /* eBPF only: jump != */ + BPF_JSGT 0x60 /* eBPF only: signed '>' */ + BPF_JSGE 0x70 /* eBPF only: signed '>=' */ + BPF_CALL 0x80 /* eBPF BPF_JMP only: function call */ + BPF_EXIT 0x90 /* eBPF BPF_JMP only: function return */ + BPF_JLT 0xa0 /* eBPF only: unsigned '<' */ + BPF_JLE 0xb0 /* eBPF only: unsigned '<=' */ + BPF_JSLT 0xc0 /* eBPF only: signed '<' */ + BPF_JSLE 0xd0 /* eBPF only: signed '<=' */ + +So BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU means 32-bit addition in both classic BPF +and eBPF. There are only two registers in classic BPF, so it means A += X. +In eBPF it means dst_reg = (u32) dst_reg + (u32) src_reg; similarly, +BPF_XOR | BPF_K | BPF_ALU means A ^= imm32 in classic BPF and analogous +src_reg = (u32) src_reg ^ (u32) imm32 in eBPF. + +Classic BPF is using BPF_MISC class to represent A = X and X = A moves. +eBPF is using BPF_MOV | BPF_X | BPF_ALU code instead. Since there are no +BPF_MISC operations in eBPF, the class 7 is used as BPF_ALU64 to mean +exactly the same operations as BPF_ALU, but with 64-bit wide operands +instead. So BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU64 means 64-bit addition, i.e.: +dst_reg = dst_reg + src_reg + +Classic BPF wastes the whole BPF_RET class to represent a single ``ret`` +operation. Classic BPF_RET | BPF_K means copy imm32 into return register +and perform function exit. eBPF is modeled to match CPU, so BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT +in eBPF means function exit only. The eBPF program needs to store return +value into register R0 before doing a BPF_EXIT. Class 6 in eBPF is used as +BPF_JMP32 to mean exactly the same operations as BPF_JMP, but with 32-bit wide +operands for the comparisons instead. + +For load and store instructions the 8-bit 'code' field is divided as:: + + +--------+--------+-------------------+ + | 3 bits | 2 bits | 3 bits | + | mode | size | instruction class | + +--------+--------+-------------------+ + (MSB) (LSB) + +Size modifier is one of ... + +:: + + BPF_W 0x00 /* word */ + BPF_H 0x08 /* half word */ + BPF_B 0x10 /* byte */ + BPF_DW 0x18 /* eBPF only, double word */ + +... which encodes size of load/store operation:: + + B - 1 byte + H - 2 byte + W - 4 byte + DW - 8 byte (eBPF only) + +Mode modifier is one of:: + + BPF_IMM 0x00 /* used for 32-bit mov in classic BPF and 64-bit in eBPF */ + BPF_ABS 0x20 + BPF_IND 0x40 + BPF_MEM 0x60 + BPF_LEN 0x80 /* classic BPF only, reserved in eBPF */ + BPF_MSH 0xa0 /* classic BPF only, reserved in eBPF */ + BPF_ATOMIC 0xc0 /* eBPF only, atomic operations */ + +eBPF has two non-generic instructions: (BPF_ABS | <size> | BPF_LD) and +(BPF_IND | <size> | BPF_LD) which are used to access packet data. + +They had to be carried over from classic to have strong performance of +socket filters running in eBPF interpreter. These instructions can only +be used when interpreter context is a pointer to ``struct sk_buff`` and +have seven implicit operands. Register R6 is an implicit input that must +contain pointer to sk_buff. Register R0 is an implicit output which contains +the data fetched from the packet. Registers R1-R5 are scratch registers +and must not be used to store the data across BPF_ABS | BPF_LD or +BPF_IND | BPF_LD instructions. + +These instructions have implicit program exit condition as well. When +eBPF program is trying to access the data beyond the packet boundary, +the interpreter will abort the execution of the program. JIT compilers +therefore must preserve this property. src_reg and imm32 fields are +explicit inputs to these instructions. + +For example:: + + BPF_IND | BPF_W | BPF_LD means: + + R0 = ntohl(*(u32 *) (((struct sk_buff *) R6)->data + src_reg + imm32)) + and R1 - R5 were scratched. + +Unlike classic BPF instruction set, eBPF has generic load/store operations:: + + BPF_MEM | <size> | BPF_STX: *(size *) (dst_reg + off) = src_reg + BPF_MEM | <size> | BPF_ST: *(size *) (dst_reg + off) = imm32 + BPF_MEM | <size> | BPF_LDX: dst_reg = *(size *) (src_reg + off) + +Where size is one of: BPF_B or BPF_H or BPF_W or BPF_DW. + +It also includes atomic operations, which use the immediate field for extra +encoding:: + + .imm = BPF_ADD, .code = BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W | BPF_STX: lock xadd *(u32 *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg + .imm = BPF_ADD, .code = BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW | BPF_STX: lock xadd *(u64 *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg + +The basic atomic operations supported are:: + + BPF_ADD + BPF_AND + BPF_OR + BPF_XOR + +Each having equivalent semantics with the ``BPF_ADD`` example, that is: the +memory location addresed by ``dst_reg + off`` is atomically modified, with +``src_reg`` as the other operand. If the ``BPF_FETCH`` flag is set in the +immediate, then these operations also overwrite ``src_reg`` with the +value that was in memory before it was modified. + +The more special operations are:: + + BPF_XCHG + +This atomically exchanges ``src_reg`` with the value addressed by ``dst_reg + +off``. :: + + BPF_CMPXCHG + +This atomically compares the value addressed by ``dst_reg + off`` with +``R0``. If they match it is replaced with ``src_reg``. In either case, the +value that was there before is zero-extended and loaded back to ``R0``. + +Note that 1 and 2 byte atomic operations are not supported. + +Clang can generate atomic instructions by default when ``-mcpu=v3`` is +enabled. If a lower version for ``-mcpu`` is set, the only atomic instruction +Clang can generate is ``BPF_ADD`` *without* ``BPF_FETCH``. If you need to enable +the atomics features, while keeping a lower ``-mcpu`` version, you can use +``-Xclang -target-feature -Xclang +alu32``. + +You may encounter ``BPF_XADD`` - this is a legacy name for ``BPF_ATOMIC``, +referring to the exclusive-add operation encoded when the immediate field is +zero. + +eBPF has one 16-byte instruction: ``BPF_LD | BPF_DW | BPF_IMM`` which consists +of two consecutive ``struct bpf_insn`` 8-byte blocks and interpreted as single +instruction that loads 64-bit immediate value into a dst_reg. +Classic BPF has similar instruction: ``BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_IMM`` which loads +32-bit immediate value into a register. + +.. Links: +.. _eBPF verifier: verifiers.rst diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..fae5f6273bac --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/bpf/verifier.rst @@ -0,0 +1,529 @@ + +============= +eBPF verifier +============= + +The safety of the eBPF program is determined in two steps. + +First step does DAG check to disallow loops and other CFG validation. +In particular it will detect programs that have unreachable instructions. +(though classic BPF checker allows them) + +Second step starts from the first insn and descends all possible paths. +It simulates execution of every insn and observes the state change of +registers and stack. + +At the start of the program the register R1 contains a pointer to context +and has type PTR_TO_CTX. +If verifier sees an insn that does R2=R1, then R2 has now type +PTR_TO_CTX as well and can be used on the right hand side of expression. +If R1=PTR_TO_CTX and insn is R2=R1+R1, then R2=SCALAR_VALUE, +since addition of two valid pointers makes invalid pointer. +(In 'secure' mode verifier will reject any type of pointer arithmetic to make +sure that kernel addresses don't leak to unprivileged users) + +If register was never written to, it's not readable:: + + bpf_mov R0 = R2 + bpf_exit + +will be rejected, since R2 is unreadable at the start of the program. + +After kernel function call, R1-R5 are reset to unreadable and +R0 has a return type of the function. + +Since R6-R9 are callee saved, their state is preserved across the call. + +:: + + bpf_mov R6 = 1 + bpf_call foo + bpf_mov R0 = R6 + bpf_exit + +is a correct program. If there was R1 instead of R6, it would have +been rejected. + +load/store instructions are allowed only with registers of valid types, which +are PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP, PTR_TO_STACK. They are bounds and alignment checked. +For example:: + + bpf_mov R1 = 1 + bpf_mov R2 = 2 + bpf_xadd *(u32 *)(R1 + 3) += R2 + bpf_exit + +will be rejected, since R1 doesn't have a valid pointer type at the time of +execution of instruction bpf_xadd. + +At the start R1 type is PTR_TO_CTX (a pointer to generic ``struct bpf_context``) +A callback is used to customize verifier to restrict eBPF program access to only +certain fields within ctx structure with specified size and alignment. + +For example, the following insn:: + + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R6 + 8) + +intends to load a word from address R6 + 8 and store it into R0 +If R6=PTR_TO_CTX, via is_valid_access() callback the verifier will know +that offset 8 of size 4 bytes can be accessed for reading, otherwise +the verifier will reject the program. +If R6=PTR_TO_STACK, then access should be aligned and be within +stack bounds, which are [-MAX_BPF_STACK, 0). In this example offset is 8, +so it will fail verification, since it's out of bounds. + +The verifier will allow eBPF program to read data from stack only after +it wrote into it. + +Classic BPF verifier does similar check with M[0-15] memory slots. +For example:: + + bpf_ld R0 = *(u32 *)(R10 - 4) + bpf_exit + +is invalid program. +Though R10 is correct read-only register and has type PTR_TO_STACK +and R10 - 4 is within stack bounds, there were no stores into that location. + +Pointer register spill/fill is tracked as well, since four (R6-R9) +callee saved registers may not be enough for some programs. + +Allowed function calls are customized with bpf_verifier_ops->get_func_proto() +The eBPF verifier will check that registers match argument constraints. +After the call register R0 will be set to return type of the function. + +Function calls is a main mechanism to extend functionality of eBPF programs. +Socket filters may let programs to call one set of functions, whereas tracing +filters may allow completely different set. + +If a function made accessible to eBPF program, it needs to be thought through +from safety point of view. The verifier will guarantee that the function is +called with valid arguments. + +seccomp vs socket filters have different security restrictions for classic BPF. +Seccomp solves this by two stage verifier: classic BPF verifier is followed +by seccomp verifier. In case of eBPF one configurable verifier is shared for +all use cases. + +See details of eBPF verifier in kernel/bpf/verifier.c + +Register value tracking +======================= + +In order to determine the safety of an eBPF program, the verifier must track +the range of possible values in each register and also in each stack slot. +This is done with ``struct bpf_reg_state``, defined in include/linux/ +bpf_verifier.h, which unifies tracking of scalar and pointer values. Each +register state has a type, which is either NOT_INIT (the register has not been +written to), SCALAR_VALUE (some value which is not usable as a pointer), or a +pointer type. The types of pointers describe their base, as follows: + + + PTR_TO_CTX + Pointer to bpf_context. + CONST_PTR_TO_MAP + Pointer to struct bpf_map. "Const" because arithmetic + on these pointers is forbidden. + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE + Pointer to the value stored in a map element. + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL + Either a pointer to a map value, or NULL; map accesses + (see maps.rst) return this type, which becomes a + PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE when checked != NULL. Arithmetic on + these pointers is forbidden. + PTR_TO_STACK + Frame pointer. + PTR_TO_PACKET + skb->data. + PTR_TO_PACKET_END + skb->data + headlen; arithmetic forbidden. + PTR_TO_SOCKET + Pointer to struct bpf_sock_ops, implicitly refcounted. + PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL + Either a pointer to a socket, or NULL; socket lookup + returns this type, which becomes a PTR_TO_SOCKET when + checked != NULL. PTR_TO_SOCKET is reference-counted, + so programs must release the reference through the + socket release function before the end of the program. + Arithmetic on these pointers is forbidden. + +However, a pointer may be offset from this base (as a result of pointer +arithmetic), and this is tracked in two parts: the 'fixed offset' and 'variable +offset'. The former is used when an exactly-known value (e.g. an immediate +operand) is added to a pointer, while the latter is used for values which are +not exactly known. The variable offset is also used in SCALAR_VALUEs, to track +the range of possible values in the register. + +The verifier's knowledge about the variable offset consists of: + +* minimum and maximum values as unsigned +* minimum and maximum values as signed + +* knowledge of the values of individual bits, in the form of a 'tnum': a u64 + 'mask' and a u64 'value'. 1s in the mask represent bits whose value is unknown; + 1s in the value represent bits known to be 1. Bits known to be 0 have 0 in both + mask and value; no bit should ever be 1 in both. For example, if a byte is read + into a register from memory, the register's top 56 bits are known zero, while + the low 8 are unknown - which is represented as the tnum (0x0; 0xff). If we + then OR this with 0x40, we get (0x40; 0xbf), then if we add 1 we get (0x0; + 0x1ff), because of potential carries. + +Besides arithmetic, the register state can also be updated by conditional +branches. For instance, if a SCALAR_VALUE is compared > 8, in the 'true' branch +it will have a umin_value (unsigned minimum value) of 9, whereas in the 'false' +branch it will have a umax_value of 8. A signed compare (with BPF_JSGT or +BPF_JSGE) would instead update the signed minimum/maximum values. Information +from the signed and unsigned bounds can be combined; for instance if a value is +first tested < 8 and then tested s> 4, the verifier will conclude that the value +is also > 4 and s< 8, since the bounds prevent crossing the sign boundary. + +PTR_TO_PACKETs with a variable offset part have an 'id', which is common to all +pointers sharing that same variable offset. This is important for packet range +checks: after adding a variable to a packet pointer register A, if you then copy +it to another register B and then add a constant 4 to A, both registers will +share the same 'id' but the A will have a fixed offset of +4. Then if A is +bounds-checked and found to be less than a PTR_TO_PACKET_END, the register B is +now known to have a safe range of at least 4 bytes. See 'Direct packet access', +below, for more on PTR_TO_PACKET ranges. + +The 'id' field is also used on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL, common to all copies of +the pointer returned from a map lookup. This means that when one copy is +checked and found to be non-NULL, all copies can become PTR_TO_MAP_VALUEs. +As well as range-checking, the tracked information is also used for enforcing +alignment of pointer accesses. For instance, on most systems the packet pointer +is 2 bytes after a 4-byte alignment. If a program adds 14 bytes to that to jump +over the Ethernet header, then reads IHL and addes (IHL * 4), the resulting +pointer will have a variable offset known to be 4n+2 for some n, so adding the 2 +bytes (NET_IP_ALIGN) gives a 4-byte alignment and so word-sized accesses through +that pointer are safe. +The 'id' field is also used on PTR_TO_SOCKET and PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL, common +to all copies of the pointer returned from a socket lookup. This has similar +behaviour to the handling for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL->PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, but +it also handles reference tracking for the pointer. PTR_TO_SOCKET implicitly +represents a reference to the corresponding ``struct sock``. To ensure that the +reference is not leaked, it is imperative to NULL-check the reference and in +the non-NULL case, and pass the valid reference to the socket release function. + +Direct packet access +==================== + +In cls_bpf and act_bpf programs the verifier allows direct access to the packet +data via skb->data and skb->data_end pointers. +Ex:: + + 1: r4 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80) /* load skb->data_end */ + 2: r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76) /* load skb->data */ + 3: r5 = r3 + 4: r5 += 14 + 5: if r5 > r4 goto pc+16 + R1=ctx R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14) R4=pkt_end R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 6: r0 = *(u16 *)(r3 +12) /* access 12 and 13 bytes of the packet */ + +this 2byte load from the packet is safe to do, since the program author +did check ``if (skb->data + 14 > skb->data_end) goto err`` at insn #5 which +means that in the fall-through case the register R3 (which points to skb->data) +has at least 14 directly accessible bytes. The verifier marks it +as R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14). +id=0 means that no additional variables were added to the register. +off=0 means that no additional constants were added. +r=14 is the range of safe access which means that bytes [R3, R3 + 14) are ok. +Note that R5 is marked as R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14). It also points +to the packet data, but constant 14 was added to the register, so +it now points to ``skb->data + 14`` and accessible range is [R5, R5 + 14 - 14) +which is zero bytes. + +More complex packet access may look like:: + + + R0=inv1 R1=ctx R3=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=14) R4=pkt_end R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 6: r0 = *(u8 *)(r3 +7) /* load 7th byte from the packet */ + 7: r4 = *(u8 *)(r3 +12) + 8: r4 *= 14 + 9: r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +76) /* load skb->data */ + 10: r3 += r4 + 11: r2 = r1 + 12: r2 <<= 48 + 13: r2 >>= 48 + 14: r3 += r2 + 15: r2 = r3 + 16: r2 += 8 + 17: r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 +80) /* load skb->data_end */ + 18: if r2 > r1 goto pc+2 + R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=pkt_end R2=pkt(id=2,off=8,r=8) R3=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=8) R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=3570,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffe)) R5=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=14) R10=fp + 19: r1 = *(u8 *)(r3 +4) + +The state of the register R3 is R3=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=8) +id=2 means that two ``r3 += rX`` instructions were seen, so r3 points to some +offset within a packet and since the program author did +``if (r3 + 8 > r1) goto err`` at insn #18, the safe range is [R3, R3 + 8). +The verifier only allows 'add'/'sub' operations on packet registers. Any other +operation will set the register state to 'SCALAR_VALUE' and it won't be +available for direct packet access. + +Operation ``r3 += rX`` may overflow and become less than original skb->data, +therefore the verifier has to prevent that. So when it sees ``r3 += rX`` +instruction and rX is more than 16-bit value, any subsequent bounds-check of r3 +against skb->data_end will not give us 'range' information, so attempts to read +through the pointer will give "invalid access to packet" error. + +Ex. after insn ``r4 = *(u8 *)(r3 +12)`` (insn #7 above) the state of r4 is +R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) which means that upper 56 bits +of the register are guaranteed to be zero, and nothing is known about the lower +8 bits. After insn ``r4 *= 14`` the state becomes +R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=3570,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffe)), since multiplying an 8-bit +value by constant 14 will keep upper 52 bits as zero, also the least significant +bit will be zero as 14 is even. Similarly ``r2 >>= 48`` will make +R2=inv(id=0,umax_value=65535,var_off=(0x0; 0xffff)), since the shift is not sign +extending. This logic is implemented in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() function, +which calls adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() for adding pointer to scalar (or vice +versa) and adjust_scalar_min_max_vals() for operations on two scalars. + +The end result is that bpf program author can access packet directly +using normal C code as:: + + void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data; + void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; + struct eth_hdr *eth = data; + struct iphdr *iph = data + sizeof(*eth); + struct udphdr *udp = data + sizeof(*eth) + sizeof(*iph); + + if (data + sizeof(*eth) + sizeof(*iph) + sizeof(*udp) > data_end) + return 0; + if (eth->h_proto != htons(ETH_P_IP)) + return 0; + if (iph->protocol != IPPROTO_UDP || iph->ihl != 5) + return 0; + if (udp->dest == 53 || udp->source == 9) + ...; + +which makes such programs easier to write comparing to LD_ABS insn +and significantly faster. + +Pruning +======= + +The verifier does not actually walk all possible paths through the program. For +each new branch to analyse, the verifier looks at all the states it's previously +been in when at this instruction. If any of them contain the current state as a +subset, the branch is 'pruned' - that is, the fact that the previous state was +accepted implies the current state would be as well. For instance, if in the +previous state, r1 held a packet-pointer, and in the current state, r1 holds a +packet-pointer with a range as long or longer and at least as strict an +alignment, then r1 is safe. Similarly, if r2 was NOT_INIT before then it can't +have been used by any path from that point, so any value in r2 (including +another NOT_INIT) is safe. The implementation is in the function regsafe(). +Pruning considers not only the registers but also the stack (and any spilled +registers it may hold). They must all be safe for the branch to be pruned. +This is implemented in states_equal(). + +Understanding eBPF verifier messages +==================================== + +The following are few examples of invalid eBPF programs and verifier error +messages as seen in the log: + +Program with unreachable instructions:: + + static struct bpf_insn prog[] = { + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }; + +Error: + + unreachable insn 1 + +Program that reads uninitialized register:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r0 = r2 + R2 !read_ok + +Program that doesn't initialize R0 before exiting:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r2 = r1 + 1: (95) exit + R0 !read_ok + +Program that accesses stack out of bounds:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, 8, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 +8) = 0 + invalid stack off=8 size=8 + +Program that doesn't initialize stack before passing its address into function:: + + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (bf) r2 = r10 + 1: (07) r2 += -8 + 2: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 3: (85) call 1 + invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8 + +Program that uses invalid map_fd=0 while calling to map_lookup_elem() function:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + fd 0 is not pointing to valid bpf_map + +Program that doesn't check return value of map_lookup_elem() before accessing +map element:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 0x0 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + R0 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null' + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL, but +accesses the memory with incorrect alignment:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 4, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +4) = 0 + misaligned access off 4 size 8 + +Program that correctly checks map_lookup_elem() returned value for NULL and +accesses memory with correct alignment in one side of 'if' branch, but fails +to do so in the other side of 'if' branch:: + + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 + 1: (bf) r2 = r10 + 2: (07) r2 += -8 + 3: (b7) r1 = 1 + 4: (85) call 1 + 5: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 + R0=map_ptr R10=fp + 6: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 0 + 7: (95) exit + + from 5 to 8: R0=imm0 R10=fp + 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 1 + R0 invalid mem access 'imm' + +Program that performs a socket lookup then sets the pointer to NULL without +checking it:: + + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 4), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, 0), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (b7) r2 = 0 + 1: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r2 + 2: (bf) r2 = r10 + 3: (07) r2 += -8 + 4: (b7) r3 = 4 + 5: (b7) r4 = 0 + 6: (b7) r5 = 0 + 7: (85) call bpf_sk_lookup_tcp#65 + 8: (b7) r0 = 0 + 9: (95) exit + Unreleased reference id=1, alloc_insn=7 + +Program that performs a socket lookup but does not NULL-check the returned +value:: + + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 4), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, 0), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_lookup_tcp), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + +Error:: + + 0: (b7) r2 = 0 + 1: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r2 + 2: (bf) r2 = r10 + 3: (07) r2 += -8 + 4: (b7) r3 = 4 + 5: (b7) r4 = 0 + 6: (b7) r5 = 0 + 7: (85) call bpf_sk_lookup_tcp#65 + 8: (95) exit + Unreleased reference id=1, alloc_insn=7 |