* [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix precision bit propagation for BPF_ST instructions
@ 2019-07-09 3:32 Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 13:05 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrii Nakryiko @ 2019-07-09 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: andrii.nakryiko, ast, daniel, bpf, netdev, kernel-team; +Cc: Andrii Nakryiko
When backtracking instructions to propagate precision bit for registers
and stack slots, one class of instructions (BPF_ST) weren't handled
causing extra stack slots to be propagated into parent state. Parent
state might not have that much stack allocated, though, which causes
warning on invalid stack slot usage.
This patch adds handling of BPF_ST instructions:
BPF_MEM | <size> | BPF_ST: *(size *) (dst_reg + off) = imm32
Reported-by: syzbot+4da3ff23081bafe74fc2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 ++++-------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index a2e763703c30..def87e9cc9c7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1519,9 +1519,9 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
return -EFAULT;
}
*stack_mask |= 1ull << spi;
- } else if (class == BPF_STX) {
+ } else if (class == BPF_STX || class == BPF_ST) {
if (*reg_mask & dreg)
- /* stx shouldn't be using _scalar_ dst_reg
+ /* stx & st shouldn't be using _scalar_ dst_reg
* to access memory. It means backtracking
* encountered a case of pointer subtraction.
*/
@@ -1540,7 +1540,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
if (!(*stack_mask & (1ull << spi)))
return 0;
*stack_mask &= ~(1ull << spi);
- *reg_mask |= sreg;
+ if (class == BPF_STX)
+ *reg_mask |= sreg;
} else if (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32) {
if (opcode == BPF_CALL) {
if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
@@ -1569,10 +1570,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
if (mode == BPF_IND || mode == BPF_ABS)
/* to be analyzed */
return -ENOTSUPP;
- } else if (class == BPF_ST) {
- if (*reg_mask & dreg)
- /* likely pointer subtraction */
- return -ENOTSUPP;
}
return 0;
}
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix precision bit propagation for BPF_ST instructions
2019-07-09 3:32 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix precision bit propagation for BPF_ST instructions Andrii Nakryiko
@ 2019-07-12 13:05 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2019-07-12 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrii Nakryiko, andrii.nakryiko, ast, bpf, netdev, kernel-team
On 07/09/2019 05:32 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> When backtracking instructions to propagate precision bit for registers
> and stack slots, one class of instructions (BPF_ST) weren't handled
> causing extra stack slots to be propagated into parent state. Parent
> state might not have that much stack allocated, though, which causes
> warning on invalid stack slot usage.
>
> This patch adds handling of BPF_ST instructions:
>
> BPF_MEM | <size> | BPF_ST: *(size *) (dst_reg + off) = imm32
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+4da3ff23081bafe74fc2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Applied, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-07-12 13:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-09 3:32 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix precision bit propagation for BPF_ST instructions Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 13:05 ` Daniel Borkmann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox