Merge branch 'dev-5.10' into dev-5.10-inteldev-5.10.46-intel

This is the 5.10.46 stable release.

Signed-off-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@intel.com>

2 files changed, 73 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index ed7d02e8bc93..aaf2fbaa0cc7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -4960,6 +4960,12 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
 	m->ret_size = ret;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++) {
+		if (i == nargs - 1 && args[i].type == 0) {
+			bpf_log(log,
+				"The function %s with variable args is unsupported.\n",
+				tname);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
 		ret = __get_type_size(btf, args[i].type, &t);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			bpf_log(log,
@@ -4967,6 +4973,12 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
 				tname, i, btf_kind_str[BTF_INFO_KIND(t->info)]);
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
+		if (ret == 0) {
+			bpf_log(log,
+				"The function %s has malformed void argument.\n",
+				tname);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
 		m->arg_size[i] = ret;
 	}
 	m->nr_args = nargs;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 4f50d6f128be..e97724e36dfb 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5740,6 +5740,27 @@ struct bpf_sanitize_info {
 	bool mask_to_left;
 };
 
+static struct bpf_verifier_state *
+sanitize_speculative_path(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+			  const struct bpf_insn *insn,
+			  u32 next_idx, u32 curr_idx)
+{
+	struct bpf_verifier_state *branch;
+	struct bpf_reg_state *regs;
+
+	branch = push_stack(env, next_idx, curr_idx, true);
+	if (branch && insn) {
+		regs = branch->frame[branch->curframe]->regs;
+		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {
+			mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
+		} else if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
+			mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg);
+			mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->src_reg);
+		}
+	}
+	return branch;
+}
+
 static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
@@ -5823,12 +5844,26 @@ do_sim:
 		tmp = *dst_reg;
 		*dst_reg = *ptr_reg;
 	}
-	ret = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, true);
+	ret = sanitize_speculative_path(env, NULL, env->insn_idx + 1,
+					env->insn_idx);
 	if (!ptr_is_dst_reg && ret)
 		*dst_reg = tmp;
 	return !ret ? REASON_STACK : 0;
 }
 
+static void sanitize_mark_insn_seen(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
+{
+	struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state;
+
+	/* If we simulate paths under speculation, we don't update the
+	 * insn as 'seen' such that when we verify unreachable paths in
+	 * the non-speculative domain, sanitize_dead_code() can still
+	 * rewrite/sanitize them.
+	 */
+	if (!vstate->speculative)
+		env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = env->pass_cnt;
+}
+
 static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			const struct bpf_insn *insn, int reason,
 			const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
@@ -7974,14 +8009,28 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 	}
+
 	if (pred == 1) {
-		/* only follow the goto, ignore fall-through */
+		/* Only follow the goto, ignore fall-through. If needed, push
+		 * the fall-through branch for simulation under speculative
+		 * execution.
+		 */
+		if (!env->bypass_spec_v1 &&
+		    !sanitize_speculative_path(env, insn, *insn_idx + 1,
+					       *insn_idx))
+			return -EFAULT;
 		*insn_idx += insn->off;
 		return 0;
 	} else if (pred == 0) {
-		/* only follow fall-through branch, since
-		 * that's where the program will go
+		/* Only follow the fall-through branch, since that's where the
+		 * program will go. If needed, push the goto branch for
+		 * simulation under speculative execution.
 		 */
+		if (!env->bypass_spec_v1 &&
+		    !sanitize_speculative_path(env, insn,
+					       *insn_idx + insn->off + 1,
+					       *insn_idx))
+			return -EFAULT;
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -9811,7 +9860,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 		}
 
 		regs = cur_regs(env);
-		env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = env->pass_cnt;
+		sanitize_mark_insn_seen(env);
 		prev_insn_idx = env->insn_idx;
 
 		if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) {
@@ -10031,7 +10080,7 @@ process_bpf_exit:
 					return err;
 
 				env->insn_idx++;
-				env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = env->pass_cnt;
+				sanitize_mark_insn_seen(env);
 			} else {
 				verbose(env, "invalid BPF_LD mode\n");
 				return -EINVAL;
@@ -10439,6 +10488,7 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 {
 	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *new_data, *old_data = env->insn_aux_data;
 	struct bpf_insn *insn = new_prog->insnsi;
+	u32 old_seen = old_data[off].seen;
 	u32 prog_len;
 	int i;
 
@@ -10459,7 +10509,8 @@ static int adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	memcpy(new_data + off + cnt - 1, old_data + off,
 	       sizeof(struct bpf_insn_aux_data) * (prog_len - off - cnt + 1));
 	for (i = off; i < off + cnt - 1; i++) {
-		new_data[i].seen = env->pass_cnt;
+		/* Expand insni[off]'s seen count to the patched range. */
+		new_data[i].seen = old_seen;
 		new_data[i].zext_dst = insn_has_def32(env, insn + i);
 	}
 	env->insn_aux_data = new_data;
@@ -11703,6 +11754,9 @@ static void free_states(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
  * insn_aux_data was touched. These variables are compared to clear temporary
  * data from failed pass. For testing and experiments do_check_common() can be
  * run multiple times even when prior attempt to verify is unsuccessful.
+ *
+ * Note that special handling is needed on !env->bypass_spec_v1 if this is
+ * ever called outside of error path with subsequent program rejection.
  */
 static void sanitize_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 {