diff options
| author | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> | 2021-04-23 16:59:55 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> | 2021-04-27 18:13:49 +0300 |
| commit | 10bf4e83167cc68595b85fd73bb91e8f2c086e36 (patch) | |
| tree | e07a78d2e184b152b8cbd85c2928002554ccc33f /kernel/bpf | |
| parent | 38d26d89b31d0766d431471572cc9b007ca19c98 (diff) | |
| download | linux-10bf4e83167cc68595b85fd73bb91e8f2c086e36.tar.xz | |
bpf: Fix propagation of 32 bit unsigned bounds from 64 bit bounds
Similarly as b02709587ea3 ("bpf: Fix propagation of 32-bit signed bounds
from 64-bit bounds."), we also need to fix the propagation of 32 bit
unsigned bounds from 64 bit counterparts. That is, really only set the
u32_{min,max}_value when /both/ {umin,umax}_value safely fit in 32 bit
space. For example, the register with a umin_value == 1 does /not/ imply
that u32_min_value is also equal to 1, since umax_value could be much
larger than 32 bit subregister can hold, and thus u32_min_value is in
the interval [0,1] instead.
Before fix, invalid tracking result of R2_w=inv1:
[...]
5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0
5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1
[...] // goto path
7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0
7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1
[...] // goto path
9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775807,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umin_value=1,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x1; 0xffffffff00000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0
9: (bc) w2 = w2
10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv1 R10=fp0
[...]
After fix, correct tracking result of R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)):
[...]
5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0
5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1
[...] // goto path
7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0
7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1
[...] // goto path
9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000001),s32_min_value=0,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0
9: (bc) w2 = w2
10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)) R10=fp0
[...]
Thus, same issue as in b02709587ea3 holds for unsigned subregister tracking.
Also, align __reg64_bound_u32() similarly to __reg64_bound_s32() as done in
b02709587ea3 to make them uniform again.
Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
Reported-by: Manfred Paul (@_manfp)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/bpf')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 8 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 637462e9b6ee..9145f88b2a0a 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1398,9 +1398,7 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a) static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a) { - if (a > U32_MIN && a < U32_MAX) - return true; - return false; + return a > U32_MIN && a < U32_MAX; } static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) @@ -1411,10 +1409,10 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value; reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value; } - if (__reg64_bound_u32(reg->umin_value)) + if (__reg64_bound_u32(reg->umin_value) && __reg64_bound_u32(reg->umax_value)) { reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value; - if (__reg64_bound_u32(reg->umax_value)) reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value; + } /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc), |