diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 26 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c | 4 |
3 files changed, 33 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 1c4ebb326785..358a3566bb60 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -8189,6 +8189,11 @@ static int process_iter_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, int insn_id const struct btf_type *t; int spi, err, i, nr_slots, btf_id; + if (reg->type != PTR_TO_STACK) { + verbose(env, "arg#%d expected pointer to an iterator on stack\n", regno - 1); + return -EINVAL; + } + /* For iter_{new,next,destroy} functions, btf_check_iter_kfuncs() * ensures struct convention, so we wouldn't need to do any BTF * validation here. But given iter state can be passed as a parameter diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c index ef70b88bccb2..7c969c127573 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c @@ -1486,4 +1486,30 @@ int iter_subprog_check_stacksafe(const void *ctx) return 0; } +struct bpf_iter_num global_it; + +SEC("raw_tp") +__failure __msg("arg#0 expected pointer to an iterator on stack") +int iter_new_bad_arg(const void *ctx) +{ + bpf_iter_num_new(&global_it, 0, 1); + return 0; +} + +SEC("raw_tp") +__failure __msg("arg#0 expected pointer to an iterator on stack") +int iter_next_bad_arg(const void *ctx) +{ + bpf_iter_num_next(&global_it); + return 0; +} + +SEC("raw_tp") +__failure __msg("arg#0 expected pointer to an iterator on stack") +int iter_destroy_bad_arg(const void *ctx) +{ + bpf_iter_num_destroy(&global_it); + return 0; +} + char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c index 7c881bca9af5..a7a6ae6c162f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ __description("uninitialized iter in ->next()") __failure __msg("expected an initialized iter_bits as arg #1") int BPF_PROG(next_uninit, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta, struct cgroup *cgrp) { - struct bpf_iter_bits *it = NULL; + struct bpf_iter_bits it = {}; - bpf_iter_bits_next(it); + bpf_iter_bits_next(&it); return 0; } |