From 14b6198abbd54924fad6ae4936f8d20df68fa56e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Chaignon Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:46:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Fix incorrect state pruning for <8B spill/fill commit 345e004d023343d38088fdfea39688aa11e06ccf upstream. Commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") introduced support in the verifier to track <8B spill/fills of scalars. The backtracking logic for the precision bit was however skipping spill/fills of less than 8B. That could cause state pruning to consider two states equivalent when they shouldn't be. As an example, consider the following bytecode snippet: 0: r7 = r1 1: call bpf_get_prandom_u32 2: r6 = 2 3: if r0 == 0 goto pc+1 4: r6 = 3 ... 8: [state pruning point] ... /* u32 spill/fill */ 10: *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r6 11: r8 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) 12: r0 = 0 13: if r8 == 3 goto pc+1 14: r0 = 1 15: exit The verifier first walks the path with R6=3. Given the support for <8B spill/fills, at instruction 13, it knows the condition is true and skips instruction 14. At that point, the backtracking logic kicks in but stops at the fill instruction since it only propagates the precision bit for 8B spill/fill. When the verifier then walks the path with R6=2, it will consider it safe at instruction 8 because R6 is not marked as needing precision. Instruction 14 is thus never walked and is then incorrectly removed as 'dead code'. It's also possible to lead the verifier to accept e.g. an out-of-bound memory access instead of causing an incorrect dead code elimination. This regression was found via Cilium's bpf-next CI where it was causing a conntrack map update to be silently skipped because the code had been removed by the verifier. This commit fixes it by enabling support for <8B spill/fills in the bactracking logic. In case of a <8B spill/fill, the full 8B stack slot will be marked as needing precision. Then, in __mark_chain_precision, any tracked register spilled in a marked slot will itself be marked as needing precision, regardless of the spill size. This logic makes two assumptions: (1) only 8B-aligned spill/fill are tracked and (2) spilled registers are only tracked if the spill and fill sizes are equal. Commit ef979017b837 ("bpf: selftest: Add verifier tests for <8-byte scalar spill and refill") covers the first assumption and the next commit in this patchset covers the second. Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 1c89c25327c8..a2fdd9beb1a0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2224,8 +2224,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, */ if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_FP) return 0; - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) - return 0; /* dreg = *(u64 *)[fp - off] was a fill from the stack. * that [fp - off] slot contains scalar that needs to be @@ -2248,8 +2246,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, /* scalars can only be spilled into stack */ if (insn->dst_reg != BPF_REG_FP) return 0; - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) - return 0; spi = (-insn->off - 1) / BPF_REG_SIZE; if (spi >= 64) { verbose(env, "BUG spi %d\n", spi);