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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).