diff options
author | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2020-10-14 10:56:08 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> | 2020-10-15 16:05:31 +0200 |
commit | e688c3db7ca69bea1872c5706aec6a7fdf89df17 (patch) | |
tree | 349ebbc1f6d7a6e61e7c56a447ba8c926f811b79 | |
parent | ccdf7fae3afaeaf0e5dd03311b86ffa56adf85ae (diff) | |
download | linux-e688c3db7ca69bea1872c5706aec6a7fdf89df17.tar.bz2 |
bpf: Fix register equivalence tracking.
The 64-bit JEQ/JNE handling in reg_set_min_max() was clearing reg->id in either
true or false branch. In the case 'if (reg->id)' check was done on the other
branch the counter part register would have reg->id == 0 when called into
find_equal_scalars(). In such case the helper would incorrectly identify other
registers with id == 0 as equivalent and propagate the state incorrectly.
Fix it by preserving ID across reg_set_min_max().
In other words any kind of comparison operator on the scalar register
should preserve its ID to recognize:
r1 = r2
if (r1 == 20) {
#1 here both r1 and r2 == 20
} else if (r2 < 20) {
#2 here both r1 and r2 < 20
}
The patch is addressing #1 case. The #2 was working correctly already.
Fixes: 75748837b7e5 ("bpf: Propagate scalar ranges through register assignments.")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201014175608.1416-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 38 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/regalloc.c | 26 |
2 files changed, 51 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index c43a5e8f0818..39d7f44e7c92 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1010,14 +1010,9 @@ static const int caller_saved[CALLER_SAVED_REGS] = { static void __mark_reg_not_init(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg); -/* Mark the unknown part of a register (variable offset or scalar value) as - * known to have the value @imm. - */ -static void __mark_reg_known(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 imm) +/* This helper doesn't clear reg->id */ +static void ___mark_reg_known(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 imm) { - /* Clear id, off, and union(map_ptr, range) */ - memset(((u8 *)reg) + sizeof(reg->type), 0, - offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, var_off) - sizeof(reg->type)); reg->var_off = tnum_const(imm); reg->smin_value = (s64)imm; reg->smax_value = (s64)imm; @@ -1030,6 +1025,17 @@ static void __mark_reg_known(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 imm) reg->u32_max_value = (u32)imm; } +/* Mark the unknown part of a register (variable offset or scalar value) as + * known to have the value @imm. + */ +static void __mark_reg_known(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 imm) +{ + /* Clear id, off, and union(map_ptr, range) */ + memset(((u8 *)reg) + sizeof(reg->type), 0, + offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, var_off) - sizeof(reg->type)); + ___mark_reg_known(reg, imm); +} + static void __mark_reg32_known(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 imm) { reg->var_off = tnum_const_subreg(reg->var_off, imm); @@ -7001,14 +7007,18 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, struct bpf_reg_state *reg = opcode == BPF_JEQ ? true_reg : false_reg; - /* For BPF_JEQ, if this is false we know nothing Jon Snow, but - * if it is true we know the value for sure. Likewise for - * BPF_JNE. + /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence. + * r1 = r2; + * if (r1 == 42) goto label; + * ... + * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42. + * + * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID. */ if (is_jmp32) __mark_reg32_known(reg, val32); else - __mark_reg_known(reg, val); + ___mark_reg_known(reg, val); break; } case BPF_JSET: @@ -7551,7 +7561,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, reg_combine_min_max(&other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg], &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg], src_reg, dst_reg, opcode); - if (src_reg->id) { + if (src_reg->id && + !WARN_ON_ONCE(src_reg->id != other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg].id)) { find_equal_scalars(this_branch, src_reg); find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->src_reg]); } @@ -7563,7 +7574,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, opcode, is_jmp32); } - if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && dst_reg->id) { + if (dst_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && dst_reg->id && + !WARN_ON_ONCE(dst_reg->id != other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg].id)) { find_equal_scalars(this_branch, dst_reg); find_equal_scalars(other_branch, &other_branch_regs[insn->dst_reg]); } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/regalloc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/regalloc.c index ac71b824f97a..4ad7e05de706 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/regalloc.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/regalloc.c @@ -241,3 +241,29 @@ .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT, }, +{ + "regalloc, spill, JEQ", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1), + 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_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8), /* spill r0 */ + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + /* The verifier will walk the rest twice with r0 == 0 and r0 == map_value */ + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_2, 20, 0), + /* The verifier will walk the rest two more times with r0 == 20 and r0 == unknown */ + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_10, -8), /* fill r3 with map_value */ + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, 0, 1), /* skip ldx if map_value == NULL */ + /* Buggy verifier will think that r3 == 20 here */ + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, 0), /* read from map_value */ + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 4 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT, +}, |