From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.130 commit 9adec7334969d9a20b9359ee745d17efc8f9890f category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I5YRJO
Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=...
--------------------------------
commit a12ca6277eca6aeeccf66e840c23a2b520e24c8f upstream.
Kuee reported a quirk in the jmp32's jeq/jne simulation, namely that the register value does not match expectations for the fall-through path. For example:
Before fix:
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P571 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok
After fix:
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P8 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok
As can be seen on line 5 for the branch fall-through path in R2 [*] is that given condition w2 != 0x8 is false, verifier should conclude that r2 = 8 as upper 32 bit are known to be zero. However, verifier incorrectly concludes that r2 = 571 which is far off.
The problem is it only marks false{true}_reg as known in the switch for JE/NE case, but at the end of the function, it uses {false,true}_{64,32}off to update {false,true}_reg->var_off and they still hold the prior value of {false,true}_reg->var_off before it got marked as known. The subsequent __reg_combine_32_into_64() then propagates this old var_off and derives new bounds. The information between min/max bounds on {false,true}_reg from setting the register to known const combined with the {false,true}_reg->var_off based on the old information then derives wrong register data.
Fix it by detangling the BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE cases and updating relevant {false,true}_{64,32}off tnums along with the register marking to known constant.
Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a liulin063@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko andrii@kernel.org Acked-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Zheng Zengkai zhengzengkai@huawei.com Acked-by: Xie XiuQi xiexiuqi@huawei.com --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index edd5685f0153..c2a37f71f779 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -7564,26 +7564,33 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg, return;
switch (opcode) { + /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence. + * + * r1 = r2; + * if (r1 == 42) goto label; + * ... + * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42. + * + * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID. + */ case BPF_JEQ: + if (is_jmp32) { + __mark_reg32_known(true_reg, val32); + true_32off = tnum_subreg(true_reg->var_off); + } else { + ___mark_reg_known(true_reg, val); + true_64off = true_reg->var_off; + } + break; case BPF_JNE: - { - struct bpf_reg_state *reg = - opcode == BPF_JEQ ? true_reg : false_reg; - - /* JEQ/JNE comparison doesn't change the register equivalence. - * r1 = r2; - * if (r1 == 42) goto label; - * ... - * label: // here both r1 and r2 are known to be 42. - * - * Hence when marking register as known preserve it's ID. - */ - if (is_jmp32) - __mark_reg32_known(reg, val32); - else - ___mark_reg_known(reg, val); + if (is_jmp32) { + __mark_reg32_known(false_reg, val32); + false_32off = tnum_subreg(false_reg->var_off); + } else { + ___mark_reg_known(false_reg, val); + false_64off = false_reg->var_off; + } break; - } case BPF_JSET: if (is_jmp32) { false_32off = tnum_and(false_32off, tnum_const(~val32));