From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jemarch@gnu.org,
thinker.li@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] bpf: check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:28:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240424012821.595216-5-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240424012821.595216-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
When doing BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN for bpf_dummy_struct_ops programs,
reject execution when NULL is passed for non-nullable params.
For programs with non-nullable params verifier assumes that
such params are never NULL and thus might optimize out NULL checks.
Suggested-by: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c b/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
index 8f413cdfd91a..891cdf61c65a 100644
--- a/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
+++ b/net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c
@@ -79,6 +79,51 @@ static int dummy_ops_call_op(void *image, struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args)
args->args[3], args->args[4]);
}
+static const struct bpf_ctx_arg_aux *find_ctx_arg_info(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux, int offset)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < aux->ctx_arg_info_size; i++)
+ if (aux->ctx_arg_info[i].offset == offset)
+ return &aux->ctx_arg_info[i];
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+/* There is only one check at the moment:
+ * - zero should not be passed for pointer parameters not marked as nullable.
+ */
+static int check_test_run_args(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args)
+{
+ const struct btf_type *func_proto = prog->aux->attach_func_proto;
+
+ for (u32 arg_no = 0; arg_no < btf_type_vlen(func_proto) ; ++arg_no) {
+ const struct btf_param *param = &btf_params(func_proto)[arg_no];
+ const struct bpf_ctx_arg_aux *info;
+ const struct btf_type *t;
+ int offset;
+
+ if (args->args[arg_no] != 0)
+ continue;
+
+ /* Program is validated already, so there is no need
+ * to check if t is NULL.
+ */
+ t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(bpf_dummy_ops_btf, param->type, NULL);
+ if (!btf_type_is_ptr(t))
+ continue;
+
+ offset = btf_ctx_arg_offset(bpf_dummy_ops_btf, func_proto, arg_no);
+ info = find_ctx_arg_info(prog->aux, offset);
+ if (info && (info->reg_type & PTR_MAYBE_NULL))
+ continue;
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
extern const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_struct_ops_link_lops;
int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
@@ -87,7 +132,7 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
const struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops = &bpf_bpf_dummy_ops;
const struct btf_type *func_proto;
struct bpf_dummy_ops_test_args *args;
- struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks;
+ struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks = NULL;
struct bpf_tramp_link *link = NULL;
void *image = NULL;
unsigned int op_idx;
@@ -109,6 +154,10 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_test_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
if (IS_ERR(args))
return PTR_ERR(args);
+ err = check_test_run_args(prog, args);
+ if (err)
+ goto out;
+
tlinks = kcalloc(BPF_TRAMP_MAX, sizeof(*tlinks), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!tlinks) {
err = -ENOMEM;
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-24 1:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-24 1:28 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: mark bpf_dummy_struct_ops.test_1 parameter as nullable Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: adjust dummy_st_ops_success to detect additional error Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: do not pass NULL for non-nullable params in dummy_st_ops Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24 1:28 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-04-24 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: dummy_st_ops should reject 0 for non-nullable params Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-25 19:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20240424012821.595216-5-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jemarch@gnu.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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