diff options
| author | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2019-09-04 01:16:17 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> | 2019-09-05 15:06:58 +0300 |
| commit | 2339cd6cd0b5401fa3fe886bf1c0cb8822041957 (patch) | |
| tree | bf43566d1a375cbc7ebff8e0b946b72f246e0c1b /kernel/bpf | |
| parent | 44580a0118d3ede95fec4dce32df5f75f73cd663 (diff) | |
| download | linux-2339cd6cd0b5401fa3fe886bf1c0cb8822041957.tar.xz | |
bpf: fix precision tracking of stack slots
The problem can be seen in the following two tests:
0: (bf) r3 = r10
1: (55) if r3 != 0x7b goto pc+0
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = 0
3: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)
..
0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7
1: (bf) r3 = r10
2: (55) if r3 != 0x7b goto pc+0
3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = r0
4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)
When backtracking need to mark R4 it will mark slot fp-8.
But ST or STX into fp-8 could belong to the same block of instructions.
When backtracing is done the parent state may have fp-8 slot
as "unallocated stack". Which will cause verifier to warn
and incorrectly reject such programs.
Writes into stack via non-R10 register are rare. llvm always
generates canonical stack spill/fill.
For such pathological case fall back to conservative precision
tracking instead of rejecting.
Reported-by: syzbot+c8d66267fd2b5955287e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/bpf')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 23 |
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index b5c14c9d7b98..c36a719fee6d 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1772,16 +1772,21 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, bitmap_from_u64(mask, stack_mask); for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 64) { if (i >= func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE) { - /* This can happen if backtracking - * is propagating stack precision where - * caller has larger stack frame - * than callee, but backtrack_insn() should - * have returned -ENOTSUPP. + /* the sequence of instructions: + * 2: (bf) r3 = r10 + * 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = r0 + * 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) + * doesn't contain jmps. It's backtracked + * as a single block. + * During backtracking insn 3 is not recognized as + * stack access, so at the end of backtracking + * stack slot fp-8 is still marked in stack_mask. + * However the parent state may not have accessed + * fp-8 and it's "unallocated" stack space. + * In such case fallback to conservative. */ - verbose(env, "BUG spi %d stack_size %d\n", - i, func->allocated_stack); - WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); - return -EFAULT; + mark_all_scalars_precise(env, st); + return 0; } if (func->stack[i].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) { |