From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
jannh@google.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 14/14] selftests/bpf: add tests for recent bugfixes" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:47:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <151395767167130@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171222152312.2945-15-daniel@iogearbox.net>
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
[PATCH stable/4.14 14/14] selftests/bpf: add tests for recent bugfixes
to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
selftests-bpf-add-tests-for-recent-bugfixes.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.14 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From foo@baz Fri Dec 22 16:47:02 CET 2017
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:23:12 +0100
Subject: [PATCH stable/4.14 14/14] selftests/bpf: add tests for recent bugfixes
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jannh@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20171222152312.2945-15-daniel@iogearbox.net>
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
[ Upstream commit 2255f8d520b0a318fc6d387d0940854b2f522a7f ]
These tests should cover the following cases:
- MOV with both zero-extended and sign-extended immediates
- implicit truncation of register contents via ALU32/MOV32
- implicit 32-bit truncation of ALU32 output
- oversized register source operand for ALU32 shift
- right-shift of a number that could be positive or negative
- map access where adding the operation size to the offset causes signed
32-bit overflow
- direct stack access at a ~4GiB offset
Also remove the F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT flag from a bunch of tests
that should fail independent of what flags userspace passes.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 549 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 533 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -606,7 +606,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.errstr = "misaligned stack access",
.result = REJECT,
- .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"invalid map_fd for function call",
@@ -1797,7 +1796,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "misaligned stack access off (0x0; 0x0)+-8+2 size 8",
- .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK store/load - bad alignment on reg",
@@ -1810,7 +1808,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "misaligned stack access off (0x0; 0x0)+-10+8 size 8",
- .flags = F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK store/load - out of bounds low",
@@ -6115,7 +6112,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6139,7 +6136,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6165,7 +6162,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R8 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6190,7 +6187,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R8 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6238,7 +6235,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6309,7 +6306,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6360,7 +6357,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6387,7 +6384,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6413,7 +6410,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6442,7 +6439,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6472,7 +6469,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 4 },
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -6500,8 +6497,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer comparison prohibited",
- .errstr = "R0 min value is negative",
+ .errstr = "unbounded min value",
.result = REJECT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
},
@@ -6557,6 +6553,462 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
},
{
+ "bounds check based on zero-extended MOV",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
+ /* r2 = 0x0000'0000'ffff'ffff */
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff),
+ /* r2 = 0 */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_2, 32),
+ /* no-op */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ /* access at offset 0 */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = ACCEPT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check based on sign-extended MOV. test1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
+ /* r2 = 0xffff'ffff'ffff'ffff */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff),
+ /* r2 = 0xffff'ffff */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_2, 32),
+ /* r0 = <oob pointer> */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ /* access to OOB pointer */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "map_value pointer and 4294967295",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check based on sign-extended MOV. test2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
+ /* r2 = 0xffff'ffff'ffff'ffff */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff),
+ /* r2 = 0xfff'ffff */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_2, 36),
+ /* r0 = <oob pointer> */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+ /* access to OOB pointer */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "R0 min value is outside of the array range",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check based on reg_off + var_off + insn_off. test1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_6, 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, (1 << 29) - 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, (1 << 29) - 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 4 },
+ .errstr = "value_size=8 off=1073741825",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check based on reg_off + var_off + insn_off. test2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 4),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_6, 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, (1 << 30) - 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, (1 << 29) - 1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 4 },
+ .errstr = "value 1073741823",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after truncation of non-boundary-crossing range",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 9),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
+ /* r2 = 0x10'0000'0000 */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_2, 36),
+ /* r1 = [0x10'0000'0000, 0x10'0000'00ff] */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+ /* r1 = [0x10'7fff'ffff, 0x10'8000'00fe] */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] */
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ /* r1 = 0 */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ /* no-op */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* access at offset 0 */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = ACCEPT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after truncation of boundary-crossing range (1)",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 9),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0xffff'ff80, 0x1'0000'007f] */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0xffff'ff80, 0xffff'ffff] or
+ * [0x0000'0000, 0x0000'007f]
+ */
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] or
+ * [0xffff'ffff'0000'0080, 0xffff'ffff'ffff'ffff]
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = 0 or
+ * [0x00ff'ffff'ff00'0000, 0x00ff'ffff'ffff'ffff]
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ /* no-op or OOB pointer computation */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* potentially OOB access */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ /* not actually fully unbounded, but the bound is very high */
+ .errstr = "R0 unbounded memory access",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after truncation of boundary-crossing range (2)",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 9),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0xffff'ff80, 0x1'0000'007f] */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0xffff'ff80, 0xffff'ffff] or
+ * [0x0000'0000, 0x0000'007f]
+ * difference to previous test: truncation via MOV32
+ * instead of ALU32.
+ */
+ BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] or
+ * [0xffff'ffff'0000'0080, 0xffff'ffff'ffff'ffff]
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 0xffffff80 >> 1),
+ /* r1 = 0 or
+ * [0x00ff'ffff'ff00'0000, 0x00ff'ffff'ffff'ffff]
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ /* no-op or OOB pointer computation */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* potentially OOB access */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ /* not actually fully unbounded, but the bound is very high */
+ .errstr = "R0 unbounded memory access",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after wrapping 32-bit addition",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 5),
+ /* r1 = 0x7fff'ffff */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ /* r1 = 0xffff'fffe */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ /* r1 = 0 */
+ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 2),
+ /* no-op */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* access at offset 0 */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = ACCEPT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after shift with oversized count operand",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 32),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ /* r1 = (u32)1 << (u32)32 = ? */
+ BPF_ALU32_REG(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+ /* r1 = [0x0000, 0xffff] */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, 0xffff),
+ /* computes unknown pointer, potentially OOB */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* potentially OOB access */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "R0 max value is outside of the array range",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check after right shift of maybe-negative number",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6),
+ /* r1 = [0x00, 0xff] */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* r1 = [-0x01, 0xfe] */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+ /* r1 = 0 or 0xff'ffff'ffff'ffff */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ /* r1 = 0 or 0xffff'ffff'ffff */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ /* computes unknown pointer, potentially OOB */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ /* potentially OOB access */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* exit */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "R0 unbounded memory access",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check map access with off+size signed 32bit overflow. test1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 0x7ffffffe),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_A(0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "map_value pointer and 2147483646",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check map access with off+size signed 32bit overflow. test2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_A(0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "pointer offset 1073741822",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check map access with off+size signed 32bit overflow. test3",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_JMP_A(0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "pointer offset -1073741822",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "bounds check map access with off+size signed 32bit overflow. test4",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1000000),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_1, 1000000),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_JMP_A(0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .errstr = "map_value pointer and 1000000000000",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "pointer/scalar confusion in state equality check (way 1)",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_A(1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_JMP_A(0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 leaks addr as return value"
+ },
+ {
+ "pointer/scalar confusion in state equality check (way 2)",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_JMP_A(1),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 leaks addr as return value"
+ },
+ {
"variable-offset ctx access",
.insns = {
/* Get an unknown value */
@@ -6598,6 +7050,71 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
{
+ "indirect variable-offset stack access",
+ .insns = {
+ /* Fill the top 8 bytes of the stack */
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ /* Get an unknown value */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ /* Make it small and 4-byte aligned */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 4),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+ /* add it to fp. We now have either fp-4 or fp-8, but
+ * we don't know which
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ /* dereference it indirectly */
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
+ BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map1 = { 5 },
+ .errstr = "variable stack read R2",
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
+ },
+ {
+ "direct stack access with 32-bit wraparound. test1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x7fffffff),
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN()
+ },
+ .errstr = "fp pointer and 2147483647",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "direct stack access with 32-bit wraparound. test2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x3fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x3fffffff),
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN()
+ },
+ .errstr = "fp pointer and 1073741823",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
+ "direct stack access with 32-bit wraparound. test3",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0x1fffffff),
+ BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN()
+ },
+ .errstr = "fp pointer offset 1073741822",
+ .result = REJECT
+ },
+ {
"liveness pruning and write screening",
.insns = {
/* Get an unknown value */
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from daniel@iogearbox.net are
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-integer-overflows.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-branch-pruning-logic.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-s390x-do-not-reload-skb-pointers-in-non-skb-context.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-sparc-fix-usage-of-wrong-reg-for-load_skb_regs-after-call.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-incorrect-tracking-of-register-size-truncation.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-don-t-prune-branches-when-a-scalar-is-replaced-with-a-pointer.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-verifier-fix-bounds-calculation-on-bpf_rsh.patch
queue-4.14/selftests-bpf-add-tests-for-recent-bugfixes.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-corruption-on-concurrent-perf_event_output-calls.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-incorrect-sign-extension-in-check_alu_op.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-ppc64-do-not-reload-skb-pointers-in-non-skb-context.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-missing-error-return-in-check_stack_boundary.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-force-strict-alignment-checks-for-stack-pointers.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-32-bit-alu-op-verification.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-build-issues-on-um-due-to-mising-bpf_perf_event.h.patch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-22 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-22 15:22 [PATCH stable/4.14 00/14] BPF stable patches for 4.14 Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:22 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 01/14] bpf: fix branch pruning logic Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 01/14] bpf: fix branch pruning logic" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 02/14] bpf: fix corruption on concurrent perf_event_output calls Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 02/14] bpf: fix corruption on concurrent perf_event_output calls" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 03/14] bpf, s390x: do not reload skb pointers in non-skb context Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 03/14] bpf, s390x: do not reload skb pointers in non-skb context" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 04/14] bpf, ppc64: do not reload skb pointers in non-skb context Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 04/14] bpf, ppc64: do not reload skb pointers in non-skb context" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 05/14] bpf, sparc: fix usage of wrong reg for load_skb_regs after call Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 05/14] bpf, sparc: fix usage of wrong reg for load_skb_regs after call" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 06/14] bpf/verifier: fix bounds calculation on BPF_RSH Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 06/14] bpf/verifier: fix bounds calculation on BPF_RSH" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 07/14] bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op() Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 07/14] bpf: fix incorrect sign extension in check_alu_op()" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 08/14] bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 08/14] bpf: fix incorrect tracking of register size truncation" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 09/14] bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 09/14] bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 10/14] bpf: fix missing error return in check_stack_boundary() Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 10/14] bpf: fix missing error return in check_stack_boundary()" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 11/14] bpf: force strict alignment checks for stack pointers Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 11/14] bpf: force strict alignment checks for stack pointers" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 12/14] bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 12/14] bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 13/14] bpf: fix integer overflows Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` Patch "[PATCH stable/4.14 13/14] bpf: fix integer overflows" has been added to the 4.14-stable tree gregkh
2017-12-22 15:23 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 14/14] selftests/bpf: add tests for recent bugfixes Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-22 15:47 ` gregkh [this message]
2017-12-22 15:45 ` [PATCH stable/4.14 00/14] BPF stable patches for 4.14 Greg KH
2017-12-22 15:48 ` Greg KH
2017-12-22 15:51 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=151395767167130@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.