From: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 01/13] bpf: Loosen alloc obj test in verifier's reg_btf_record
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 15:09:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221206231000.3180914-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221206231000.3180914-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com>
btf->struct_meta_tab is populated by btf_parse_struct_metas in btf.c.
There, a BTF record is created for any type containing a spin_lock or
any next-gen datastructure node/head.
Currently, for non-MAP_VALUE types, reg_btf_record will only search for
a record using struct_meta_tab if the reg->type exactly matches
(PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC). This exact match is too strict: an
"allocated obj" type - returned from bpf_obj_new - might pick up other
flags while working its way through the program.
Loosen the check to be exact for base_type and just use MEM_ALLOC mask
for type_flag.
This patch is marked Fixes as the original intent of reg_btf_record was
unlikely to have been to fail finding btf_record for valid alloc obj
types with additional flags, some of which (e.g. PTR_UNTRUSTED)
are valid register type states for alloc obj independent of this series.
However, I didn't find a specific broken repro case outside of this
series' added functionality, so it's possible that nothing was
triggering this logic error before.
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
cc: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Fixes: 4e814da0d599 ("bpf: Allow locking bpf_spin_lock in allocated objects")
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1d51bd9596da..67a13110bc22 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -451,6 +451,11 @@ static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
type == PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON;
}
+static bool type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(u32 type)
+{
+ return base_type(type) == PTR_TO_BTF_ID && type_flag(type) & MEM_ALLOC;
+}
+
static struct btf_record *reg_btf_record(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
struct btf_record *rec = NULL;
@@ -458,7 +463,7 @@ static struct btf_record *reg_btf_record(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
if (reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) {
rec = reg->map_ptr->record;
- } else if (reg->type == (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
+ } else if (type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(reg->type)) {
meta = btf_find_struct_meta(reg->btf, reg->btf_id);
if (meta)
rec = meta->record;
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-06 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-06 23:09 [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] BPF rbtree next-gen datastructure Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` Dave Marchevsky [this message]
2022-12-07 16:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/13] bpf: Loosen alloc obj test in verifier's reg_btf_record Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-12-07 18:34 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 18:59 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 20:38 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 22:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 23:42 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 19:03 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/13] bpf: map_check_btf should fail if btf_parse_fields fails Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 1:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 16:49 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-12-07 19:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-17 8:59 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/13] bpf: Minor refactor of ref_set_release_on_unlock Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/13] bpf: rename list_head -> datastructure_head in field info types Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 1:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 18:52 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 19:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/13] bpf: Add basic bpf_rb_{root,node} support Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 1:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/13] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} kfuncs Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/13] bpf: Add support for bpf_rb_root and bpf_rb_node in kfunc args Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 1:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/13] bpf: Add callback validation to kfunc verifier logic Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 2:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-17 8:49 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/13] bpf: Special verifier handling for bpf_rbtree_{remove, first} Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 2:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/13] bpf, x86: BPF_PROBE_MEM handling for insn->off < 0 Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 2:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 6:46 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 18:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 23:39 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-08 0:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-08 8:50 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/13] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{add,remove,first} decls to bpf_experimental.h Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/13] libbpf: Make BTF mandatory if program BTF has spin_lock or alloc_obj type Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-06 23:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add rbtree selftests Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 2:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] BPF rbtree next-gen datastructure patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2022-12-07 19:36 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-12-07 22:28 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-07 23:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-08 1:18 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-08 3:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-08 8:28 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-08 12:57 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2022-12-08 20:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-08 23:35 ` Dave Marchevsky
2022-12-09 0:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=20221206231000.3180914-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--to=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox