lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/16] bpf: add eBPF verifier
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> wrote:
>>> Safety of eBPF programs is statically determined by the verifier, which detects:
>>> - loops
>>> - out of range jumps
>>> - unreachable instructions
>>> - invalid instructions
>>> - uninitialized register access
>>> - uninitialized stack access
>>> - misaligned stack access
>>> - out of range stack access
>>> - invalid calling convention
>>
>> Is there something that documents exactly what conditions an eBPF
>> program must satisfy in order to be considered valid?
>
> I did a writeup in the past on things that verifiers checks and gave it
> to internal folks to review. Guys have said that now they understand very
> well how it works, but in reality it didn't help at all to write valid programs.
> What worked is 'verification trace' = the instruction by instruction dump
> of verifier state while it's analyzing the program.
> I gave few simple examples of it in
> 'Understanding eBPF verifier messages' section:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/ast/bpf.git/diff/Documentation/networking/filter.txt?id=b22459133b9f52d2176c8c0f8b5eb036478a40c9
> Every example there is what "program must satisfy to be valid"...
>
> Therefore I'm addressing two things:
> 1. how verifier works and what it checks for.
> that is described in 'eBPF verifier' section of the doc and
> in 200 lines of comments inside verifier.c

That doc is pretty good. I'll try to read it carefully soon. Sorry
for the huge delay here -- I've been on vacation.

--Andy

> 2. how to write valid programs
> that's more important one, since it's a key to happy users.
> 'verification trace' is the first step. I'm planning to add debug info and
> user space tool that points out to line in C instead of assembler trace.
> In other words to bring errors to user as early as possible during
> compilation process.
> This is not a concern when programs are written in assembler,
> since the programs will be much shorter and thought through by
> the author. However I don't think there will be too many users
> willing to understand ebpf assembler.
>
> I suspect you're more concerned about #1 at this point whereas
> I'm concerned about #2.



--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-12 21:41    [W:0.106 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site