diff options
| author | Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com> | 2018-12-15 03:34:40 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2018-12-18 14:45:01 -0800 |
| commit | 0bae2d4d62d523f06ff1a8e88ce38b45400acd28 (patch) | |
| tree | bf6f6180c0843475a553345c96f4e4c00c2272ca /tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | |
| parent | a38d1107f937ca95dcf820161ef44ea683d6a0b1 (diff) | |
| download | linux-0bae2d4d62d523f06ff1a8e88ce38b45400acd28.tar.bz2 | |
bpf: correct slot_type marking logic to allow more stack slot sharing
Verifier is supposed to support sharing stack slot allocated to ptr with
SCALAR_VALUE for privileged program. However this doesn't happen for some
cases.
The reason is verifier is not clearing slot_type STACK_SPILL for all bytes,
it only clears part of them, while verifier is using:
slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL
as a convention to check one slot is ptr type.
So, the consequence of partial clearing slot_type is verifier could treat a
partially overridden ptr slot, which should now be a SCALAR_VALUE slot,
still as ptr slot, and rejects some valid programs.
Before this patch, test_xdp_noinline.o under bpf selftests, bpf_lxc.o and
bpf_netdev.o under Cilium bpf repo, when built with -mattr=+alu32 are
rejected due to this issue. After this patch, they all accepted.
There is no processed insn number change before and after this patch on
Cilium bpf programs.
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 34 |
1 files changed, 32 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index f9de7fe0c26d..cf242734e2eb 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -1001,15 +1001,45 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_1, -8), /* mess up with R1 pointer on stack */ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_10, -7, 0x23), - /* fill back into R0 should fail */ + /* fill back into R0 is fine for priv. + * R0 now becomes SCALAR_VALUE. + */ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8), + /* Load from R0 should fail. */ + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 8), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .errstr_unpriv = "attempt to corrupt spilled", - .errstr = "corrupted spill", + .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv", .result = REJECT, }, { + "check corrupted spill/fill, LSB", + .insns = { + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0xcafe), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr_unpriv = "attempt to corrupt spilled", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = POINTER_VALUE, + }, + { + "check corrupted spill/fill, MSB", + .insns = { + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, -4, 0x12345678), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr_unpriv = "attempt to corrupt spilled", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .result = ACCEPT, + .retval = POINTER_VALUE, + }, + { "invalid src register in STX", .insns = { BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_10, -1, -1), |