bpf/verifier: improve register value range tracking with ARSH

When helpers like bpf_get_stack returns an int value
and later on used for arithmetic computation, the LSH and ARSH
operations are often required to get proper sign extension into
64-bit. For example, without this patch:
    54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
    54: (bf) r8 = r0
    55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
    55: (67) r8 <<= 32
    56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
    56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
    57: R8=inv(id=0)
With this patch:
    54: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
    54: (bf) r8 = r0
    55: R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=800)
    55: (67) r8 <<= 32
    56: R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=3435973836800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff00000000))
    56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
    57: R8=inv(id=0, umax_value=800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff))
With better range of "R8", later on when "R8" is added to other register,
e.g., a map pointer or scalar-value register, the better register
range can be derived and verifier failure may be avoided.

In our later example,
    ......
    usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
    if (usize < 0)
        return 0;
    ksize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data + usize, max_len - usize, 0);
    ......
Without improving ARSH value range tracking, the register representing
"max_len - usize" will have smin_value equal to S64_MIN and will be
rejected by verifier.

Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
index 1f4bf68c12db..938d41211be7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
@@ -43,6 +43,16 @@ struct tnum tnum_rshift(struct tnum a, u8 shift)
 	return TNUM(a.value >> shift, a.mask >> shift);
 }
 
+struct tnum tnum_arshift(struct tnum a, u8 min_shift)
+{
+	/* if a.value is negative, arithmetic shifting by minimum shift
+	 * will have larger negative offset compared to more shifting.
+	 * If a.value is nonnegative, arithmetic shifting by minimum shift
+	 * will have larger positive offset compare to more shifting.
+	 */
+	return TNUM((s64)a.value >> min_shift, (s64)a.mask >> min_shift);
+}
+
 struct tnum tnum_add(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 {
 	u64 sm, sv, sigma, chi, mu;