From: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com
commit 9ac26e9973bac5716a2a542e32f380c84db2b88c upstream.
With current ALU32 subreg handling and retval refine fix from last patches we see an expected failure in test_verifier. With verbose verifier state being printed at each step for clarity we have the following relavent lines [I omit register states that are not necessarily useful to see failure cause],
#101/p bpf_get_stack return R0 within range FAIL Failed to load prog 'Success'! [..] 14: (85) call bpf_get_stack#67 R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=inv48 15: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 15: (b7) r1 = 0 16: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 16: (bf) r8 = r0 17: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 17: (67) r8 <<= 32 18: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808512, umax_value=18446744069414584320, var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000000), s32_min_value=0, s32_max_value=0, u32_max_value=0, var32_off=(0x0; 0x0)) 18: (c7) r8 s>>= 32 19 R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=2147483647, var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 19: (cd) if r1 s< r8 goto pc+16 R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=0, var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) 20: R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=48,var32_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R1_w=inv0 R8_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483648, smax_value=0, R9=inv48 20: (1f) r9 -= r8 21: (bf) r2 = r7 22: R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=48,imm=0) 22: (0f) r2 += r8 value -2147483648 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds
After call bpf_get_stack() on line 14 and some moves we have at line 16 an r8 bound with max_value 48 but an unknown min value. This is to be expected bpf_get_stack call can only return a max of the input size but is free to return any negative error in the 32-bit register space. The C helper is returning an int so will use lower 32-bits.
Lines 17 and 18 clear the top 32 bits with a left/right shift but use ARSH so we still have worst case min bound before line 19 of -2147483648. At this point the signed check 'r1 s< r8' meant to protect the addition on line 22 where dst reg is a map_value pointer may very well return true with a large negative number. Then the final line 22 will detect this as an invalid operation and fail the program. What we want to do is proceed only if r8 is positive non-error. So change 'r1 s< r8' to 'r1 s> r8' so that we jump if r8 is negative.
Next we will throw an error because we access past the end of the map value. The map value size is 48 and sizeof(struct test_val) is 48 so we walk off the end of the map value on the second call to get bpf_get_stack(). Fix this by changing sizeof(struct test_val) to 24 by using 'sizeof(struct test_val) / 2'. After this everything passes as expected.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158560426019.10843.3285429543232025187.stgit@joh... Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c @@ -9,17 +9,17 @@ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 28), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_0), - BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_9, sizeof(struct test_val)), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_9, sizeof(struct test_val)/2), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7), - BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, sizeof(struct test_val)), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, sizeof(struct test_val)/2), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 256), BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_get_stack), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_0), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_8, 32), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_8, 32), - BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JSLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_8, 16), + BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_8, 16), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_8), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_8), @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_7), - BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, sizeof(struct test_val)), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_5, sizeof(struct test_val)/2), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_5), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, 4), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6),