[ Upstream commit 01793ed86b ]
It's confusing to inspect 'prog->aux->tail_call_reachable' with drgn[0],
when bpf prog has tail call but 'tail_call_reachable' is false.
This patch corrects 'tail_call_reachable' when bpf prog has tail call.
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240610124224.34673-2-hffilwlqm@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit bed2eb964c upstream.
Daniel Hodges reported a kernel verifier crash when playing with sched-ext.
Further investigation shows that the crash is due to invalid memory access
in stacksafe(). More specifically, it is the following code:
if (exact != NOT_EXACT &&
old->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] !=
cur->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE])
return false;
The 'i' iterates old->allocated_stack.
If cur->allocated_stack < old->allocated_stack the out-of-bound
access will happen.
To fix the issue add 'i >= cur->allocated_stack' check such that if
the condition is true, stacksafe() should fail. Otherwise,
cur->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] memory access is legal.
Fixes: 2793a8b015 ("bpf: exact states comparison for iterator convergence checks")
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@meta.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240812214847.213612-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[ shung-hsi.yu: "exact" variable is bool instead enum because commit
4f81c16f50 ("bpf: Recognize that two registers are safe when their
ranges match") is not present. ]
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This reverts commit fdd411af81 which is
commit 7d2cc63eca upstream.
It is part of a series that is reported to both break the arm64 builds
and instantly crashes the powerpc systems at the first load of a bpf
program. So revert it for now until it can come back in a safe way.
Reported-by: matoro <matoro_mailinglist_kernel@matoro.tk>
Reported-by: Vitaly Chikunov <vt@altlinux.org>
Reported-by: WangYuli <wangyuli@uniontech.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/5A29E00D83AB84E3+20240706031101.637601-1-wangyuli@uniontech.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/cf736c5e37489e7dc7ffd67b9de2ab47@matoro.tk
Cc: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> # s390x
Cc: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> # LoongArch
Cc: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com> # MIPS Part
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 44b7f7151d ]
In coerce_subreg_to_size_sx(), for the case where upper
sign extension bits are the same for smax32 and smin32
values, we missed to setup properly. This is especially
problematic if both smax32 and smin32's sign extension
bits are 1.
The following is a simple example illustrating the inconsistent
verifier states due to missed var_off:
0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0_w=scalar()
1: (bf) r3 = r0 ; R0_w=scalar(id=1) R3_w=scalar(id=1)
2: (57) r3 &= 15 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=15,var_off=(0x0; 0xf))
3: (47) r3 |= 128 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=128,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=143,var_off=(0x80; 0xf))
4: (bc) w7 = (s8)w3
REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (alu): range bounds violation u64=[0xffffff80, 0x8f] s64=[0xffffff80, 0x8f]
u32=[0xffffff80, 0x8f] s32=[0x80, 0xffffff8f] var_off=(0x80, 0xf)
The var_off=(0x80, 0xf) is not correct, and the correct one should
be var_off=(0xffffff80; 0xf) since from insn 3, we know that at
insn 4, the sign extension bits will be 1. This patch fixed this
issue by setting var_off properly.
Fixes: 8100928c88 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240615174632.3995278-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 380d5f89a4 ]
Zac reported a verification failure and Alexei reproduced the issue
with a simple reproducer ([1]). The verification failure is due to missed
setting for var_off.
The following is the reproducer in [1]:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
0: (71) r3 = *(u8 *)(r10 -387) ;
R3_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R10=fp0
1: (bc) w7 = (s8)w3 ;
R3_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
R7_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=127,var_off=(0x0; 0x7f))
2: (36) if w7 >= 0x2533823b goto pc-3
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r7 stack= before 1: (bc) w7 = (s8)w3
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r3 stack= before 0: (71) r3 = *(u8 *)(r10 -387)
2: R7_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=127,var_off=(0x0; 0x7f))
3: (b4) w0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
4: (95) exit
Note that after insn 1, the var_off for R7 is (0x0; 0x7f). This is not correct
since upper 24 bits of w7 could be 0 or 1. So correct var_off should be
(0x0; 0xffffffff). Missing var_off setting in set_sext32_default_val() caused later
incorrect analysis in zext_32_to_64(dst_reg) and reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg).
To fix the issue, set var_off correctly in set_sext32_default_val(). The correct
reg state after insn 1 becomes:
1: (bc) w7 = (s8)w3 ;
R3_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
R7_w=scalar(smin=0,smax=umax=0xffffffff,smin32=-128,smax32=127,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
and at insn 2, the verifier correctly determines either branch is possible.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQLPU0Shz7dWV4bn2BgtGdxN3uFHPeobGBA72tpg5Xoykw@mail.gmail.com/
Fixes: 8100928c88 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Reported-by: Zac Ecob <zacecob@protonmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240615174626.3994813-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit af66bfd3c8 ]
When removing the inner map from the outer map, the inner map will be
freed after one RCU grace period and one RCU tasks trace grace
period, so it is certain that the bpf program, which may access the
inner map, has exited before the inner map is freed.
However there is no need to wait for one RCU tasks trace grace period if
the outer map is only accessed by non-sleepable program. So adding
sleepable_refcnt in bpf_map and increasing sleepable_refcnt when adding
the outer map into env->used_maps for sleepable program. Although the
max number of bpf program is INT_MAX - 1, the number of bpf programs
which are being loaded may be greater than INT_MAX, so using atomic64_t
instead of atomic_t for sleepable_refcnt. When removing the inner map
from the outer map, using sleepable_refcnt to decide whether or not a
RCU tasks trace grace period is needed before freeing the inner map.
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231204140425.1480317-6-houtao@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Stable-dep-of: 2884dc7d08 ("bpf: Fix a potential use-after-free in bpf_link_free()")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 98e948fb60 ]
We have seen an influx of syzkaller reports where a BPF program attached to
a tracepoint triggers a locking rule violation by performing a map_delete
on a sockmap/sockhash.
We don't intend to support this artificial use scenario. Extend the
existing verifier allowed-program-type check for updating sockmap/sockhash
to also cover deleting from a map.
From now on only BPF programs which were previously allowed to update
sockmap/sockhash can delete from these map types.
Fixes: ff91059932 ("bpf, sockmap: Prevent lock inversion deadlock in map delete elem")
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Reported-by: syzbot+ec941d6e24f633a59172@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: syzbot+ec941d6e24f633a59172@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ec941d6e24f633a59172
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240527-sockmap-verify-deletes-v1-1-944b372f2101@cloudflare.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 0db63c0b86 ]
The verifier assumes that 'sk' field in 'struct socket' is valid
and non-NULL when 'socket' pointer itself is trusted and non-NULL.
That may not be the case when socket was just created and
passed to LSM socket_accept hook.
Fix this verifier assumption and adjust tests.
Reported-by: Liam Wisehart <liamwisehart@meta.com>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Fixes: 6fcd486b3a ("bpf: Refactor RCU enforcement in the verifier.")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240427002544.68803-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 1f2a74b41e ]
r10 is a special register that is not under BPF program's control and is
always effectively precise. The rest of precision logic assumes that
only r0-r9 SCALAR registers are marked as precise, so prevent r10 from
being marked precise.
This can happen due to signed cast instruction allowing to do something
like `r0 = (s8)r10;`, which later, if r0 needs to be precise, would lead
to an attempt to mark r10 as precise.
Prevent this with an extra check during instruction backtracking.
Fixes: 8100928c88 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Reported-by: syzbot+148110ee7cf72f39f33e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240404214536.3551295-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 37eacb9f6e ]
Long ago a map file descriptor in a pseudo ldimm64 instruction could
only be present as an immediate value insn[0].imm, and thus this value
was used in a verbose verifier message printed when the file descriptor
wasn't valid. Since addition of BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX_VALUE/BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX
the insn[0].imm field can also contain an index pointing to the file
descriptor in the attr.fd_array array. However, if the file descriptor
is invalid, the verifier still prints the verbose message containing
value of insn[0].imm. Patch the verifier message to always print the
actual file descriptor value.
Fixes: 387544bfa2 ("bpf: Introduce fd_idx")
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240412141100.3562942-1-aspsk@isovalent.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit ecc6a21018 ]
This patch re-introduces protection against the size of access to stack
memory being negative; the access size can appear negative as a result
of overflowing its signed int representation. This should not actually
happen, as there are other protections along the way, but we should
protect against it anyway. One code path was missing such protections
(fixed in the previous patch in the series), causing out-of-bounds array
accesses in check_stack_range_initialized(). This patch causes the
verification of a program with such a non-sensical access size to fail.
This check used to exist in a more indirect way, but was inadvertendly
removed in a833a17aea.
Fixes: a833a17aea ("bpf: Fix verification of indirect var-off stack access")
Reported-by: syzbot+33f4297b5f927648741a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+aafd0513053a1cbf52ef@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQLORV5PT0iTAhRER+iLBTkByCYNBYyvBSgjN1T31K+gOw@mail.gmail.com/
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240327024245.318299-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit e9a8e5a587 ]
When comparing current and cached states verifier should consider
bpf_func_state->callback_depth. Current state cannot be pruned against
cached state, when current states has more iterations left compared to
cached state. Current state has more iterations left when it's
callback_depth is smaller.
Below is an example illustrating this bug, minimized from mailing list
discussion [0] (assume that BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ is set).
The example is not a safe program: if loop_cb point (1) is followed by
loop_cb point (2), then division by zero is possible at point (4).
struct ctx {
__u64 a;
__u64 b;
__u64 c;
};
static void loop_cb(int i, struct ctx *ctx)
{
/* assume that generated code is "fallthrough-first":
* if ... == 1 goto
* if ... == 2 goto
* <default>
*/
switch (bpf_get_prandom_u32()) {
case 1: /* 1 */ ctx->a = 42; return 0; break;
case 2: /* 2 */ ctx->b = 42; return 0; break;
default: /* 3 */ ctx->c = 42; return 0; break;
}
}
SEC("tc")
__failure
__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
int test(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
struct ctx ctx = { 7, 7, 7 };
bpf_loop(2, loop_cb, &ctx, 0); /* 0 */
/* assume generated checks are in-order: .a first */
if (ctx.a == 42 && ctx.b == 42 && ctx.c == 7)
asm volatile("r0 /= 0;":::"r0"); /* 4 */
return 0;
}
Prior to this commit verifier built the following checkpoint tree for
this example:
.------------------------------------- Checkpoint / State name
| .-------------------------------- Code point number
| | .---------------------------- Stack state {ctx.a,ctx.b,ctx.c}
| | | .------------------- Callback depth in frame #0
v v v v
- (0) {7P,7P,7},depth=0
- (3) {7P,7P,7},depth=1
- (0) {7P,7P,42},depth=1
- (3) {7P,7,42},depth=2
- (0) {7P,7,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,7,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
(a) - (2) {7P,7,42},depth=2
- (0) {7P,42,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {7P,42,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.a marked precise
- (6) exit
(b) - (1) {7P,7P,42},depth=2
- (0) {42P,7P,42},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42P,7P,42},depth=0 predicted false, ctx.{a,b} marked precise
- (6) exit
- (2) {7P,7,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (a)
(c) - (1) {7P,7P,7},depth=1 considered safe, pruned using checkpoint (b)
Here checkpoint (b) has callback_depth of 2, meaning that it would
never reach state {42,42,7}.
While checkpoint (c) has callback_depth of 1, and thus
could yet explore the state {42,42,7} if not pruned prematurely.
This commit makes forbids such premature pruning,
allowing verifier to explore states sub-tree starting at (c):
(c) - (1) {7,7,7P},depth=1
- (0) {42P,7,7P},depth=1
...
- (2) {42,7,7},depth=2
- (0) {42,42,7},depth=2 loop terminates because of depth limit
- (4) {42,42,7},depth=0 predicted true, ctx.{a,b,c} marked precise
- (5) division by zero
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9b251840-7cb8-4d17-bd23-1fc8071d8eef@linux.dev/
Fixes: bb124da69c ("bpf: keep track of max number of bpf_loop callback iterations")
Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240222154121.6991-2-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit bb124da69c upstream.
In some cases verifier can't infer convergence of the bpf_loop()
iteration. E.g. for the following program:
static int cb(__u32 idx, struct num_context* ctx)
{
ctx->i++;
return 0;
}
SEC("?raw_tp")
int prog(void *_)
{
struct num_context ctx = { .i = 0 };
__u8 choice_arr[2] = { 0, 1 };
bpf_loop(2, cb, &ctx, 0);
return choice_arr[ctx.i];
}
Each 'cb' simulation would eventually return to 'prog' and reach
'return choice_arr[ctx.i]' statement. At which point ctx.i would be
marked precise, thus forcing verifier to track multitude of separate
states with {.i=0}, {.i=1}, ... at bpf_loop() callback entry.
This commit allows "brute force" handling for such cases by limiting
number of callback body simulations using 'umax' value of the first
bpf_loop() parameter.
For this, extend bpf_func_state with 'callback_depth' field.
Increment this field when callback visiting state is pushed to states
traversal stack. For frame #N it's 'callback_depth' field counts how
many times callback with frame depth N+1 had been executed.
Use bpf_func_state specifically to allow independent tracking of
callback depths when multiple nested bpf_loop() calls are present.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121020701.26440-11-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit ab5cfac139 upstream.
Prior to this patch callbacks were handled as regular function calls,
execution of callback body was modeled exactly once.
This patch updates callbacks handling logic as follows:
- introduces a function push_callback_call() that schedules callback
body verification in env->head stack;
- updates prepare_func_exit() to reschedule callback body verification
upon BPF_EXIT;
- as calls to bpf_*_iter_next(), calls to callback invoking functions
are marked as checkpoints;
- is_state_visited() is updated to stop callback based iteration when
some identical parent state is found.
Paths with callback function invoked zero times are now verified first,
which leads to necessity to modify some selftests:
- the following negative tests required adding release/unlock/drop
calls to avoid previously masked unrelated error reports:
- cb_refs.c:underflow_prog
- exceptions_fail.c:reject_rbtree_add_throw
- exceptions_fail.c:reject_with_cp_reference
- the following precision tracking selftests needed change in expected
log trace:
- verifier_subprog_precision.c:callback_result_precise
(note: r0 precision is no longer propagated inside callback and
I think this is a correct behavior)
- verifier_subprog_precision.c:parent_callee_saved_reg_precise_with_callback
- verifier_subprog_precision.c:parent_stack_slot_precise_with_callback
Reported-by: Andrew Werner <awerner32@gmail.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+vRuzPChFNXmouzGG+wsy=6eMcfr1mFG0F3g7rbg-sedGKW3w@mail.gmail.com/
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121020701.26440-7-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 58124a98cb upstream.
Move code for simulated stack frame creation to a separate utility
function. This function would be used in the follow-up change for
callbacks handling.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121020701.26440-6-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 683b96f960 upstream.
Split check_reg_arg() into two utility functions:
- check_reg_arg() operating on registers from current verifier state;
- __check_reg_arg() operating on a specific set of registers passed as
a parameter;
The __check_reg_arg() function would be used by a follow-up change for
callbacks handling.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121020701.26440-5-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit b4d8239534 upstream.
Additional logging in is_state_visited(): if infinite loop is detected
print full verifier state for both current and equivalent states.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-8-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 2a0992829e upstream.
It turns out that .branches > 0 in is_state_visited() is not a
sufficient condition to identify if two verifier states form a loop
when iterators convergence is computed. This commit adds logic to
distinguish situations like below:
(I) initial (II) initial
| |
V V
.---------> hdr ..
| | |
| V V
| .------... .------..
| | | | |
| V V V V
| ... ... .-> hdr ..
| | | | | |
| V V | V V
| succ <- cur | succ <- cur
| | | |
| V | V
| ... | ...
| | | |
'----' '----'
For both (I) and (II) successor 'succ' of the current state 'cur' was
previously explored and has branches count at 0. However, loop entry
'hdr' corresponding to 'succ' might be a part of current DFS path.
If that is the case 'succ' and 'cur' are members of the same loop
and have to be compared exactly.
Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-6-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 2793a8b015 upstream.
Convergence for open coded iterators is computed in is_state_visited()
by examining states with branches count > 1 and using states_equal().
states_equal() computes sub-state relation using read and precision marks.
Read and precision marks are propagated from children states,
thus are not guaranteed to be complete inside a loop when branches
count > 1. This could be demonstrated using the following unsafe program:
1. r7 = -16
2. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
3. while (bpf_iter_num_next(&fp[-8])) {
4. if (r6 != 42) {
5. r7 = -32
6. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
7. continue
8. }
9. r0 = r10
10. r0 += r7
11. r8 = *(u64 *)(r0 + 0)
12. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32()
13. }
Here verifier would first visit path 1-3, create a checkpoint at 3
with r7=-16, continue to 4-7,3 with r7=-32.
Because instructions at 9-12 had not been visitied yet existing
checkpoint at 3 does not have read or precision mark for r7.
Thus states_equal() would return true and verifier would discard
current state, thus unsafe memory access at 11 would not be caught.
This commit fixes this loophole by introducing exact state comparisons
for iterator convergence logic:
- registers are compared using regs_exact() regardless of read or
precision marks;
- stack slots have to have identical type.
Unfortunately, this is too strict even for simple programs like below:
i = 0;
while(iter_next(&it))
i++;
At each iteration step i++ would produce a new distinct state and
eventually instruction processing limit would be reached.
To avoid such behavior speculatively forget (widen) range for
imprecise scalar registers, if those registers were not precise at the
end of the previous iteration and do not match exactly.
This a conservative heuristic that allows to verify wide range of
programs, however it precludes verification of programs that conjure
an imprecise value on the first loop iteration and use it as precise
on the second.
Test case iter_task_vma_for_each() presents one of such cases:
unsigned int seen = 0;
...
bpf_for_each(task_vma, vma, task, 0) {
if (seen >= 1000)
break;
...
seen++;
}
Here clang generates the following code:
<LBB0_4>:
24: r8 = r6 ; stash current value of
... body ... 'seen'
29: r1 = r10
30: r1 += -0x8
31: call bpf_iter_task_vma_next
32: r6 += 0x1 ; seen++;
33: if r0 == 0x0 goto +0x2 <LBB0_6> ; exit on next() == NULL
34: r7 += 0x10
35: if r8 < 0x3e7 goto -0xc <LBB0_4> ; loop on seen < 1000
<LBB0_6>:
... exit ...
Note that counter in r6 is copied to r8 and then incremented,
conditional jump is done using r8. Because of this precision mark for
r6 lags one state behind of precision mark on r8 and widening logic
kicks in.
Adding barrier_var(seen) after conditional is sufficient to force
clang use the same register for both counting and conditional jump.
This issue was discussed in the thread [1] which was started by
Andrew Werner <awerner32@gmail.com> demonstrating a similar bug
in callback functions handling. The callbacks would be addressed
in a followup patch.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/97a90da09404c65c8e810cf83c94ac703705dc0e.camel@gmail.com/
Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Co-developed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-4-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 4c97259abc upstream.
Extract same_callsites() from clean_live_states() as a utility function.
This function would be used by the next patch in the set.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-3-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 3c4e420cb6 upstream.
Subsequent patches would make use of explored_state() function.
Move it up to avoid adding unnecessary prototype.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231024000917.12153-2-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 6b4a64bafd ]
Privileged programs are supposed to be able to read uninitialized stack
memory (ever since 6715df8d5) but, before this patch, these accesses
were permitted inconsistently. In particular, accesses were permitted
above state->allocated_stack, but not below it. In other words, if the
stack was already "large enough", the access was permitted, but
otherwise the access was rejected instead of being allowed to "grow the
stack". This undesired rejection was happening in two places:
- in check_stack_slot_within_bounds()
- in check_stack_range_initialized()
This patch arranges for these accesses to be permitted. A bunch of tests
that were relying on the old rejection had to change; all of them were
changed to add also run unprivileged, in which case the old behavior
persists. One tests couldn't be updated - global_func16 - because it
can't run unprivileged for other reasons.
This patch also fixes the tracking of the stack size for variable-offset
reads. This second fix is bundled in the same commit as the first one
because they're inter-related. Before this patch, writes to the stack
using registers containing a variable offset (as opposed to registers
with fixed, known values) were not properly contributing to the
function's needed stack size. As a result, it was possible for a program
to verify, but then to attempt to read out-of-bounds data at runtime
because a too small stack had been allocated for it.
Each function tracks the size of the stack it needs in
bpf_subprog_info.stack_depth, which is maintained by
update_stack_depth(). For regular memory accesses, check_mem_access()
was calling update_state_depth() but it was passing in only the fixed
part of the offset register, ignoring the variable offset. This was
incorrect; the minimum possible value of that register should be used
instead.
This tracking is now fixed by centralizing the tracking of stack size in
grow_stack_state(), and by lifting the calls to grow_stack_state() to
check_stack_access_within_bounds() as suggested by Andrii. The code is
now simpler and more convincingly tracks the correct maximum stack size.
check_stack_range_initialized() can now rely on enough stack having been
allocated for the access; this helps with the fix for the first issue.
A few tests were changed to also check the stack depth computation. The
one that fails without this patch is verifier_var_off:stack_write_priv_vs_unpriv.
Fixes: 01f810ace9 ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231208032519.260451-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CABWLsev9g8UP_c3a=1qbuZUi20tGoUXoU07FPf-5FLvhOKOY+Q@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 1d38a9ee81 ]
This patch promotes the arithmetic around checking stack bounds to be
done in the 64-bit domain, instead of the current 32bit. The arithmetic
implies adding together a 64-bit register with a int offset. The
register was checked to be below 1<<29 when it was variable, but not
when it was fixed. The offset either comes from an instruction (in which
case it is 16 bit), from another register (in which case the caller
checked it to be below 1<<29 [1]), or from the size of an argument to a
kfunc (in which case it can be a u32 [2]). Between the register being
inconsistently checked to be below 1<<29, and the offset being up to an
u32, it appears that we were open to overflowing the `int`s which were
currently used for arithmetic.
[1] 815fb87b75/kernel/bpf/verifier.c (L7494-L7498)
[2] 815fb87b75/kernel/bpf/verifier.c (L11904)
Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231207041150.229139-4-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Stable-dep-of: 6b4a64bafd ("bpf: Fix accesses to uninit stack slots")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit a833a17aea ]
This patch fixes a bug around the verification of possibly-zero-sized
stack accesses. When the access was done through a var-offset stack
pointer, check_stack_access_within_bounds was incorrectly computing the
maximum-offset of a zero-sized read to be the same as the register's min
offset. Instead, we have to take in account the register's maximum
possible value. The patch also simplifies how the max offset is checked;
the check is now simpler than for min offset.
The bug was allowing accesses to erroneously pass the
check_stack_access_within_bounds() checks, only to later crash in
check_stack_range_initialized() when all the possibly-affected stack
slots are iterated (this time with a correct max offset).
check_stack_range_initialized() is relying on
check_stack_access_within_bounds() for its accesses to the
stack-tracking vector to be within bounds; in the case of zero-sized
accesses, we were essentially only verifying that the lowest possible
slot was within bounds. We would crash when the max-offset of the stack
pointer was >= 0 (which shouldn't pass verification, and hopefully is
not something anyone's code attempts to do in practice).
Thanks Hao for reporting!
Fixes: 01f810ace9 ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231207041150.229139-2-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsZGEUaRCHsmaX=h-efVogsRfK1FPxmkgb0Os_frnHiNdw@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit ab125ed3ec ]
When register is spilled onto a stack as a 1/2/4-byte register, we set
slot_type[BPF_REG_SIZE - 1] (plus potentially few more below it,
depending on actual spill size). So to check if some stack slot has
spilled register we need to consult slot_type[7], not slot_type[0].
To avoid the need to remember and double-check this in the future, just
use is_spilled_reg() helper.
Fixes: 27113c59b6 ("bpf: Check the other end of slot_type for STACK_SPILL")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205184248.1502704-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 0acd03a5bd ]
Given verifier checks actual value, r0 has to be precise, so we need to
propagate precision properly. r0 also has to be marked as read,
otherwise subsequent state comparisons will ignore such register as
unimportant and precision won't really help here.
Fixes: 69c087ba62 ("bpf: Add bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper")
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231202175705.885270-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 291d044fd5 upstream.
BPF_END and BPF_NEG has a different specification for the source bit in
the opcode compared to other ALU/ALU64 instructions, and is either
reserved or use to specify the byte swap endianness. In both cases the
source bit does not encode source operand location, and src_reg is a
reserved field.
backtrack_insn() currently does not differentiate BPF_END and BPF_NEG
from other ALU/ALU64 instructions, which leads to r0 being incorrectly
marked as precise when processing BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END
instructions. This commit teaches backtrack_insn() to correctly mark
precision for such case.
While precise tracking of BPF_NEG and other BPF_END instructions are
correct and does not need fixing, this commit opt to process all BPF_NEG
and BPF_END instructions within the same if-clause to better align with
current convention used in the verifier (e.g. check_alu_op).
Fixes: b5dc0163d8 ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <mmahmoud@redhat.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87jzrrwptf.fsf@toke.dk
Tested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102053913.12004-2-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 10e14e9652 ]
When BPF program is verified in privileged mode, BPF verifier allows
bounded loops. This means that from CFG point of view there are
definitely some back-edges. Original commit adjusted check_cfg() logic
to not detect back-edges in control flow graph if they are resulting
from conditional jumps, which the idea that subsequent full BPF
verification process will determine whether such loops are bounded or
not, and either accept or reject the BPF program. At least that's my
reading of the intent.
Unfortunately, the implementation of this idea doesn't work correctly in
all possible situations. Conditional jump might not result in immediate
back-edge, but just a few unconditional instructions later we can arrive
at back-edge. In such situations check_cfg() would reject BPF program
even in privileged mode, despite it might be bounded loop. Next patch
adds one simple program demonstrating such scenario.
To keep things simple, instead of trying to detect back edges in
privileged mode, just assume every back edge is valid and let subsequent
BPF verification prove or reject bounded loops.
Note a few test changes. For unknown reason, we have a few tests that
are specified to detect a back-edge in a privileged mode, but looking at
their code it seems like the right outcome is passing check_cfg() and
letting subsequent verification to make a decision about bounded or not
bounded looping.
Bounded recursion case is also interesting. The example should pass, as
recursion is limited to just a few levels and so we never reach maximum
number of nested frames and never exhaust maximum stack depth. But the
way that max stack depth logic works today it falsely detects this as
exceeding max nested frame count. This patch series doesn't attempt to
fix this orthogonal problem, so we just adjust expected verifier failure.
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Fixes: 2589726d12 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110061412.2995786-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 4bb7ea946a ]
Fix an edge case in __mark_chain_precision() which prematurely stops
backtracking instructions in a state if it happens that state's first
and last instruction indexes are the same. This situations doesn't
necessarily mean that there were no instructions simulated in a state,
but rather that we starting from the instruction, jumped around a bit,
and then ended up at the same instruction before checkpointing or
marking precision.
To distinguish between these two possible situations, we need to consult
jump history. If it's empty or contain a single record "bridging" parent
state and first instruction of processed state, then we indeed
backtracked all instructions in this state. But if history is not empty,
we are definitely not done yet.
Move this logic inside get_prev_insn_idx() to contain it more nicely.
Use -ENOENT return code to denote "we are out of instructions"
situation.
This bug was exposed by verifier_loop1.c's bounded_recursion subtest, once
the next fix in this patch set is applied.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Fixes: b5dc0163d8 ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110002638.4168352-3-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 3feb263bb5 ]
ldimm64 instructions are 16-byte long, and so have to be handled
appropriately in check_cfg(), just like the rest of BPF verifier does.
This has implications in three places:
- when determining next instruction for non-jump instructions;
- when determining next instruction for callback address ldimm64
instructions (in visit_func_call_insn());
- when checking for unreachable instructions, where second half of
ldimm64 is expected to be unreachable;
We take this also as an opportunity to report jump into the middle of
ldimm64. And adjust few test_verifier tests accordingly.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Fixes: 475fb78fbf ("bpf: verifier (add branch/goto checks)")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110002638.4168352-2-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 1a8a315f00 ]
Verifier emits relevant register state involved in any given instruction
next to it after `;` to the right, if possible. Or, worst case, on the
separate line repeating instruction index.
E.g., a nice and simple case would be:
2: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R0_w=0
But if there is some intervening extra output (e.g., precision
backtracking log) involved, we are supposed to see the state after the
precision backtrack log:
4: (75) if r0 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 4 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (b7) r0 = 0
6: R0_w=0
First off, note that in `6: R0_w=0` instruction index corresponds to the
next instruction, not to the conditional jump instruction itself, which
is wrong and we'll get to that.
But besides that, the above is a happy case that does work today. Yet,
if it so happens that precision backtracking had to traverse some of the
parent states, this `6: R0_w=0` state output would be missing.
This is due to a quirk of print_verifier_state() routine, which performs
mark_verifier_state_clean(env) at the end. This marks all registers as
"non-scratched", which means that subsequent logic to print *relevant*
registers (that is, "scratched ones") fails and doesn't see anything
relevant to print and skips the output altogether.
print_verifier_state() is used both to print instruction context, but
also to print an **entire** verifier state indiscriminately, e.g.,
during precision backtracking (and in a few other situations, like
during entering or exiting subprogram). Which means if we have to print
entire parent state before getting to printing instruction context
state, instruction context is marked as clean and is omitted.
Long story short, this is definitely not intentional. So we fix this
behavior in this patch by teaching print_verifier_state() to clear
scratch state only if it was used to print instruction state, not the
parent/callback state. This is determined by print_all option, so if
it's not set, we don't clear scratch state. This fixes missing
instruction state for these cases.
As for the mismatched instruction index, we fix that by making sure we
call print_insn_state() early inside check_cond_jmp_op() before we
adjusted insn_idx based on jump branch taken logic. And with that we get
desired correct information:
9: (16) if w4 == 0x1 goto pc+9
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 9 first_idx 9 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: parent state regs=r4 stack=: R2_w=1944 R4_rw=P1 R10=fp0
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 8 first_idx 0 subseq_idx 9
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 8: (66) if w4 s> 0x3 goto pc+5
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r4 stack= before 7: (b7) r4 = 1
9: R4=1
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231011223728.3188086-6-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 06d686f771 ]
The kfunc code to handle KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CALLBACK does not check the reg
type before using reg->subprogno. This can accidently permit invalid
pointers from being passed into callback helpers (e.g. silently from
different paths). Likewise, reg->subprogno from the per-register type
union may not be meaningful either. We need to reject any other type
except PTR_TO_FUNC.
Acked-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Fixes: 5d92ddc3de ("bpf: Add callback validation to kfunc verifier logic")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912233214.1518551-14-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 2b5dcb31a1 ]
From commit ebf7d1f508 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall
handling in JIT"), the tailcall on x64 works better than before.
From commit e411901c0b ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms
for x64 JIT"), tailcall is able to run in BPF subprograms on x64.
From commit 5b92a28aae ("bpf: Support attaching tracing BPF program
to other BPF programs"), BPF program is able to trace other BPF programs.
How about combining them all together?
1. FENTRY/FEXIT on a BPF subprogram.
2. A tailcall runs in the BPF subprogram.
3. The tailcall calls the subprogram's caller.
As a result, a tailcall infinite loop comes up. And the loop would halt
the machine.
As we know, in tail call context, the tail_call_cnt propagates by stack
and rax register between BPF subprograms. So do in trampolines.
Fixes: ebf7d1f508 ("bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT")
Fixes: e411901c0b ("bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms for x64 JIT")
Reviewed-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912150442.2009-3-hffilwlqm@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
The verifier, as part of check_return_code(), verifies that async
callbacks such as from e.g. timers, will return 0. It does this by
correctly checking that R0->var_off is in tnum_const(0), which
effectively checks that it's in a range of 0. If this condition fails,
however, it prints an error message which says that the value should
have been in (0x0; 0x1). This results in possibly confusing output such
as the following in which an async callback returns 1:
At async callback the register R0 has value (0x1; 0x0) should have been in (0x0; 0x1)
The fix is easy -- we should just pass the tnum_const(0) as the correct
range to verbose_invalid_scalar(), which will then print the following:
At async callback the register R0 has value (0x1; 0x0) should have been in (0x0; 0x0)
Fixes: bfc6bb74e4 ("bpf: Implement verifier support for validation of async callbacks.")
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231009161414.235829-1-void@manifault.com
In mark_chain_precision() logic, when we reach the entry to a global
func, it is expected that R1-R5 might be still requested to be marked
precise. This would correspond to some integer input arguments being
tracked as precise. This is all expected and handled as a special case.
What's not expected is that we'll leave backtrack_state structure with
some register bits set. This is because for subsequent precision
propagations backtrack_state is reused without clearing masks, as all
code paths are carefully written in a way to leave empty backtrack_state
with zeroed out masks, for speed.
The fix is trivial, we always clear register bit in the register mask, and
then, optionally, set reg->precise if register is SCALAR_VALUE type.
Reported-by: Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>
Fixes: be2ef81615 ("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230918210110.2241458-1-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Commit 9e7a4d9831 ("bpf: Allow LSM programs to use bpf spin locks")
disabled bpf_spin_lock usage in sleepable progs, stating:
Sleepable LSM programs can be preempted which means that allowng spin
locks will need more work (disabling preemption and the verifier
ensuring that no sleepable helpers are called when a spin lock is
held).
This patch disables preemption before grabbing bpf_spin_lock. The second
requirement above "no sleepable helpers are called when a spin lock is
held" is implicitly enforced by current verifier logic due to helper
calls in spin_lock CS being disabled except for a few exceptions, none
of which sleep.
Due to above preemption changes, bpf_spin_lock CS can also be considered
a RCU CS, so verifier's in_rcu_cs check is modified to account for this.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230821193311.3290257-7-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
An earlier patch in the series ensures that the underlying memory of
nodes with bpf_refcount - which can have multiple owners - is not reused
until RCU grace period has elapsed. This prevents
use-after-free with non-owning references that may point to
recently-freed memory. While RCU read lock is held, it's safe to
dereference such a non-owning ref, as by definition RCU GP couldn't have
elapsed and therefore underlying memory couldn't have been reused.
From the perspective of verifier "trustedness" non-owning refs to
refcounted nodes are now trusted only in RCU CS and therefore should no
longer pass is_trusted_reg, but rather is_rcu_reg. Let's mark them
MEM_RCU in order to reflect this new state.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230821193311.3290257-6-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Now that all reported issues are fixed, bpf_refcount_acquire can be
turned back on. Also reenable all bpf_refcount-related tests which were
disabled.
This a revert of:
* commit f3514a5d67 ("selftests/bpf: Disable newly-added 'owner' field test until refcount re-enabled")
* commit 7deca5eae8 ("bpf: Disable bpf_refcount_acquire kfunc calls until race conditions are fixed")
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230821193311.3290257-5-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
It's straightforward to prove that kptr_struct_meta must be non-NULL for
any valid call to these kfuncs:
* btf_parse_struct_metas in btf.c creates a btf_struct_meta for any
struct in user BTF with a special field (e.g. bpf_refcount,
{rb,list}_node). These are stored in that BTF's struct_meta_tab.
* __process_kf_arg_ptr_to_graph_node in verifier.c ensures that nodes
have {rb,list}_node field and that it's at the correct offset.
Similarly, check_kfunc_args ensures bpf_refcount field existence for
node param to bpf_refcount_acquire.
* So a btf_struct_meta must have been created for the struct type of
node param to these kfuncs
* That BTF and its struct_meta_tab are guaranteed to still be around.
Any arbitrary {rb,list} node the BPF program interacts with either:
came from bpf_obj_new or a collection removal kfunc in the same
program, in which case the BTF is associated with the program and
still around; or came from bpf_kptr_xchg, in which case the BTF was
associated with the map and is still around
Instead of silently continuing with NULL struct_meta, which caused
confusing bugs such as those addressed by commit 2140a6e342 ("bpf: Set
kptr_struct_meta for node param to list and rbtree insert funcs"), let's
error out. Then, at runtime, we can confidently say that the
implementations of these kfuncs were given a non-NULL kptr_struct_meta,
meaning that special-field-specific functionality like
bpf_obj_free_fields and the bpf_obj_drop change introduced later in this
series are guaranteed to execute.
This patch doesn't change functionality, just makes it easier to reason
about existing functionality.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230821193311.3290257-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
After we converted the capabilities of our networking-bpf program from
cap_sys_admin to cap_net_admin+cap_bpf, our networking-bpf program
failed to start. Because it failed the bpf verifier, and the error log
is "R3 pointer comparison prohibited".
A simple reproducer as follows,
SEC("cls-ingress")
int ingress(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
struct iphdr *iph = (void *)(long)skb->data + sizeof(struct ethhdr);
if ((long)(iph + 1) > (long)skb->data_end)
return TC_ACT_STOLEN;
return TC_ACT_OK;
}
Per discussion with Yonghong and Alexei [1], comparison of two packet
pointers is not a pointer leak. This patch fixes it.
Our local kernel is 6.1.y and we expect this fix to be backported to
6.1.y, so stable is CCed.
[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+Nmspr7Si+pxWn8zkE7hX-7s93ugwC+94aXSy4uQ9vBg@mail.gmail.com/
Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230823020703.3790-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
The commit being fixed introduced a hunk into check_func_arg_reg_off
that bypasses reg->off == 0 enforcement when offset points to a graph
node or root. This might possibly be done for treating bpf_rbtree_remove
and others as KF_RELEASE and then later check correct reg->off in helper
argument checks.
But this is not the case, those helpers are already not KF_RELEASE and
permit non-zero reg->off and verify it later to match the subobject in
BTF type.
However, this logic leads to bpf_obj_drop permitting free of register
arguments with non-zero offset when they point to a graph root or node
within them, which is not ok.
For instance:
struct foo {
int i;
int j;
struct bpf_rb_node node;
};
struct foo *f = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*f));
if (!f) ...
bpf_obj_drop(f); // OK
bpf_obj_drop(&f->i); // still ok from verifier PoV
bpf_obj_drop(&f->node); // Not OK, but permitted right now
Fix this by dropping the whole part of code altogether.
Fixes: 6a3cd3318f ("bpf: Migrate release_on_unlock logic to non-owning ref semantics")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230822175140.1317749-2-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
When reviewing local percpu kptr support, Alexei discovered a bug
wherea bpf_kptr_xchg() may succeed even if the map value kptr type and
locally allocated obj type do not match ([1]). Missed struct btf_id
comparison is the reason for the bug. This patch added such struct btf_id
comparison and will flag verification failure if types do not match.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230819002907.io3iphmnuk43xblu@macbook-pro-8.dhcp.thefacebook.com/#t
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Fixes: 738c96d5e2 ("bpf: Allow local kptrs to be exchanged via bpf_kptr_xchg")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230822050053.2886960-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
syzbot reports a verifier bug which triggers a runtime panic.
The test bpf program is:
0: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = 553656332
1: (bf) r1 = (s16)r10
2: (07) r1 += -8
3: (b7) r2 = 3
4: (bd) if r2 <= r1 goto pc+0
5: (85) call bpf_trace_printk#-138320
6: (b7) r0 = 0
7: (95) exit
At insn 1, the current implementation keeps 'r1' as a frame pointer,
which caused later bpf_trace_printk helper call crash since frame
pointer address is not valid any more. Note that at insn 4,
the 'pointer vs. scalar' comparison is allowed for privileged
prog run.
To fix the problem with above insn 1, the fix in the patch adopts
similar pattern to existing 'R1 = (u32) R2' handling. For unprivileged
prog run, verification will fail with 'R<num> sign-extension part of pointer'.
For privileged prog run, the dst_reg 'r1' will be marked as
an unknown scalar, so later 'bpf_trace_pointk' helper will complain
since it expected certain pointers.
Reported-by: syzbot+d61b595e9205573133b3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 8100928c88 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230807175721.671696-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
xdp.h is far more specific and is included in only 67 other
files vs netdevice.h's 1538 include sites.
Make xdp.h include netdevice.h, instead of the other way around.
This decreases the incremental allmodconfig builds size when
xdp.h is touched from 5947 to 662 objects.
Move bpf_prog_run_xdp() to xdp.h, seems appropriate and filter.h
is a mega-header in its own right so it's nice to avoid xdp.h
getting included there as well.
The only unfortunate part is that the typedef for xdp_features_t
has to move to netdevice.h, since its embedded in struct netdevice.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230803010230.1755386-4-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
The kernel test robot reported compilation warnings when -Wparentheses is
added to KBUILD_CFLAGS with gcc compiler. The following is the error message:
.../bpf-next/kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘coerce_reg_to_size_sx’:
.../bpf-next/kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5901:14:
error: suggest parentheses around comparison in operand of ‘==’ [-Werror=parentheses]
if (s64_max >= 0 == s64_min >= 0) {
~~~~~~~~^~~~
.../bpf-next/kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘coerce_subreg_to_size_sx’:
.../bpf-next/kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5965:14:
error: suggest parentheses around comparison in operand of ‘==’ [-Werror=parentheses]
if (s32_min >= 0 == s32_max >= 0) {
~~~~~~~~^~~~
To fix the issue, add proper parentheses for the above '>=' condition
to silence the warning/error.
I tried a few clang compilers like clang16 and clang18 and they do not emit
such warnings with -Wparentheses.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202307281133.wi0c4SqG-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728055740.2284534-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add interpreter/jit/verifier support for 32bit offset jmp instruction.
If a conditional jmp instruction needs more than 16bit offset,
it can be simulated with a conditional jmp + a 32bit jmp insn.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728011231.3716103-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
