mirror of
				https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
				synced 2025-11-04 10:40:15 +02:00 
			
		
		
		
	bpf: improve verifier packet range checks
llvm can optimize the 'if (ptr > data_end)' checks to be in the order
slightly different than the original C code which will confuse verifier.
Like:
if (ptr + 16 > data_end)
  return TC_ACT_SHOT;
// may be followed by
if (ptr + 14 > data_end)
  return TC_ACT_SHOT;
while llvm can see that 'ptr' is valid for all 16 bytes,
the verifier could not.
Fix verifier logic to account for such case and add a test.
Reported-by: Huapeng Zhou <hzhou@fb.com>
Fixes: 969bf05eb3 ("bpf: direct packet access")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
			
			
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									43a6684519
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						b1977682a3
					
				
					 2 changed files with 23 additions and 2 deletions
				
			
		| 
						 | 
				
			
			@ -1973,14 +1973,15 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_state *state,
 | 
			
		|||
 | 
			
		||||
	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
 | 
			
		||||
		if (regs[i].type == PTR_TO_PACKET && regs[i].id == dst_reg->id)
 | 
			
		||||
			regs[i].range = dst_reg->off;
 | 
			
		||||
			/* keep the maximum range already checked */
 | 
			
		||||
			regs[i].range = max(regs[i].range, dst_reg->off);
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_STACK; i += BPF_REG_SIZE) {
 | 
			
		||||
		if (state->stack_slot_type[i] != STACK_SPILL)
 | 
			
		||||
			continue;
 | 
			
		||||
		reg = &state->spilled_regs[i / BPF_REG_SIZE];
 | 
			
		||||
		if (reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET && reg->id == dst_reg->id)
 | 
			
		||||
			reg->range = dst_reg->off;
 | 
			
		||||
			reg->range = max(reg->range, dst_reg->off);
 | 
			
		||||
	}
 | 
			
		||||
}
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
| 
						 | 
				
			
			
 | 
			
		|||
| 
						 | 
				
			
			@ -3417,6 +3417,26 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 | 
			
		|||
		.result = ACCEPT,
 | 
			
		||||
		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT,
 | 
			
		||||
	},
 | 
			
		||||
	{
 | 
			
		||||
		"overlapping checks for direct packet access",
 | 
			
		||||
		.insns = {
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
 | 
			
		||||
				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
 | 
			
		||||
				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 8),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, 4),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 6),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
 | 
			
		||||
			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 | 
			
		||||
		},
 | 
			
		||||
		.result = ACCEPT,
 | 
			
		||||
		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT,
 | 
			
		||||
	},
 | 
			
		||||
	{
 | 
			
		||||
		"invalid access of tc_classid for LWT_IN",
 | 
			
		||||
		.insns = {
 | 
			
		||||
| 
						 | 
				
			
			
 | 
			
		|||
		Loading…
	
		Reference in a new issue