From 10bf4e83167cc68595b85fd73bb91e8f2c086e36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:59:55 +0000 Subject: bpf: Fix propagation of 32 bit unsigned bounds from 64 bit bounds Similarly as b02709587ea3 ("bpf: Fix propagation of 32-bit signed bounds from 64-bit bounds."), we also need to fix the propagation of 32 bit unsigned bounds from 64 bit counterparts. That is, really only set the u32_{min,max}_value when /both/ {umin,umax}_value safely fit in 32 bit space. For example, the register with a umin_value == 1 does /not/ imply that u32_min_value is also equal to 1, since umax_value could be much larger than 32 bit subregister can hold, and thus u32_min_value is in the interval [0,1] instead. Before fix, invalid tracking result of R2_w=inv1: [...] 5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0 7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775807,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umin_value=1,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x1; 0xffffffff00000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0 9: (bc) w2 = w2 10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv1 R10=fp0 [...] After fix, correct tracking result of R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)): [...] 5: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0) R10=fp0 5: (35) if r2 >= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 7: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,umin_value=1) R10=fp0 7: (b6) if w2 <= 0x1 goto pc+1 [...] // goto path 9: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808513,umax_value=18446744069414584321,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000001),s32_min_value=0,s32_max_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R10=fp0 9: (bc) w2 = w2 10: R0=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1)) R10=fp0 [...] Thus, same issue as in b02709587ea3 holds for unsigned subregister tracking. Also, align __reg64_bound_u32() similarly to __reg64_bound_s32() as done in b02709587ea3 to make them uniform again. Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking") Reported-by: Manfred Paul (@_manfp) Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'tools') diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c index 1b138cd2b187..1b1c798e9248 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/array_access.c @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ }, .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 }, .errstr_unpriv = "R0 leaks addr", - .errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=48 off=44 size=8", + .errstr = "R0 unbounded memory access", .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = REJECT, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, -- cgit v1.2.3