BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kkd@meta.com, Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	Mathias Payer <mathias.payer@nebelwelt.net>,
	Meng Xu <meng.xu.cs@uwaterloo.ca>,
	Sanidhya Kashyap <sanidhya.kashyap@epfl.ch>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] bpf: Don't mark STACK_INVALID as STACK_MISC in mark_stack_slot_misc
Date: Mon,  2 Dec 2024 00:38:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241202083814.1888784-2-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241202083814.1888784-1-memxor@gmail.com>

Inside mark_stack_slot_misc, we should not upgrade STACK_INVALID to
STACK_MISC when allow_ptr_leaks is false, since invalid contents
shouldn't be read unless the program has the relevant capabilities.
The relaxation only makes sense when env->allow_ptr_leaks is true.

However, such conversion in privileged mode becomes unnecessary, as
invalid slots can be read without being upgraded to STACK_MISC.

Currently, the condition is inverted (i.e. checking for true instead of
false), simply remove it to restore correct behavior.

Fixes: eaf18febd6eb ("bpf: preserve STACK_ZERO slots on partial reg spills")
Reported-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1c4ebb326785..c6a5c431495c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1202,14 +1202,17 @@ static bool is_spilled_scalar_reg64(const struct bpf_stack_state *stack)
 /* Mark stack slot as STACK_MISC, unless it is already STACK_INVALID, in which
  * case they are equivalent, or it's STACK_ZERO, in which case we preserve
  * more precise STACK_ZERO.
- * Note, in uprivileged mode leaving STACK_INVALID is wrong, so we take
- * env->allow_ptr_leaks into account and force STACK_MISC, if necessary.
+ * Regardless of allow_ptr_leaks setting (i.e., privileged or unprivileged
+ * mode), we won't promote STACK_INVALID to STACK_MISC. In privileged case it is
+ * unnecessary as both are considered equivalent when loading data and pruning,
+ * in case of unprivileged mode it will be incorrect to allow reads of invalid
+ * slots.
  */
 static void mark_stack_slot_misc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u8 *stype)
 {
 	if (*stype == STACK_ZERO)
 		return;
-	if (env->allow_ptr_leaks && *stype == STACK_INVALID)
+	if (*stype == STACK_INVALID)
 		return;
 	*stype = STACK_MISC;
 }
-- 
2.43.5


  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-02  8:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-02  8:38 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/5] Fixes for stack with allow_ptr_leaks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-02  8:38 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2024-12-02 22:51   ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] bpf: Don't mark STACK_INVALID as STACK_MISC in mark_stack_slot_misc Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03  0:09   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-12-02  8:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/5] bpf: Fix narrow scalar spill onto 64-bit spilled scalar slots Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-03  0:12   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-12-02  8:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/5] selftests/bpf: Introduce __caps_unpriv annotation for tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-03  0:14   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-12-02  8:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for reading from STACK_INVALID slots Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2024-12-02 22:50   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-12-03  0:16   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-12-02  8:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for narrow spill into 64-bit spilled scalar Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

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=20241202083814.1888784-2-memxor@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=kkd@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=mathias.payer@nebelwelt.net \
    --cc=meng.xu.cs@uwaterloo.ca \
    --cc=sanidhya.kashyap@epfl.ch \
    --cc=tao.lyu@epfl.ch \
    /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