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>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a38d1107f9
commit
0bae2d4d62
|
@ -1286,6 +1286,10 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
|
|||
|
||||
/* regular write of data into stack destroys any spilled ptr */
|
||||
state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.type = NOT_INIT;
|
||||
/* Mark slots as STACK_MISC if they belonged to spilled ptr. */
|
||||
if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL)
|
||||
for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++)
|
||||
state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] = STACK_MISC;
|
||||
|
||||
/* only mark the slot as written if all 8 bytes were written
|
||||
* otherwise read propagation may incorrectly stop too soon
|
||||
|
@ -1303,6 +1307,7 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
|
|||
register_is_null(&cur->regs[value_regno]))
|
||||
type = STACK_ZERO;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Mark slots affected by this stack write. */
|
||||
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
|
||||
state->stack[spi].slot_type[(slot - i) % BPF_REG_SIZE] =
|
||||
type;
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1001,13 +1001,43 @@ 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 = "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",
|
||||
.errstr = "corrupted spill",
|
||||
.result = REJECT,
|
||||
.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",
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue