[ Upstream commit a8502a79e832b861e99218cbd2d8f4312d62e225 ]
In case rold->reg->range == BEYOND_PKT_END && rcur->reg->range == N
regsafe() may return true which may lead to current state with
valid packet range not being explored. Fix the bug.
Fixes: 6d94e741a8ff ("bpf: Support for pointers beyond pkt_end.")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260331204228.26726-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 6279846b9b2532e1b04559ef8bd0dec049f29383 upstream.
Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on
the following BPF program.
0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie
1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit>
2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit>
The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps.
That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but
with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2
if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to
figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then
refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end
up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path:
1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit>
r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff)
2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit>
r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0)
r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0] var_off=(0, 0)
Improving the range refinement for JSET to cover all cases is tricky. We
also don't expect many users to rely on JSET given LLVM doesn't generate
those instructions. So instead of improving the range refinement for
JSETs, Eduard suggested we forget the ranges whenever we're narrowing
tnums after a JSET. This patch implements that approach.
Reported-by: syzbot+c711ce17dd78e5d4fdcf@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9d4fd6432a095d281f815770608fdcd16028ce0b.1752171365.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[ shung-hsi.yu: no detection or kernel warning for invariant violation before
6.8, but the same umin=1,umax=0 state can occur when jset is preceed by r0 < 1.
Changes were made to adapt to older range refinement logic before commit
67420501e868 ("bpf: generalize reg_set_min_max() to handle non-const register
comparisons"). ]
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit d18dec4b8990048ce75f0ece32bb96b3fbd3f422 ] This patch improves the verifier to correctly compute bounds for sign extension compiler pattern composed of left shift by 32bits followed by a sign right shift by 32bits. Pattern in the verifier was limitted to positive value bounds and would reset bound computation for negative values. New code allows both positive and negative values for sign extension without compromising bound computation and verifier to pass. This change is required by GCC which generate such pattern, and was detected in the context of systemd, as described in the following GCC bugzilla: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119731 Three new tests were added in verifier_subreg.c. Signed-off-by: Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@oss.qualcomm.com> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Cc: David Faust <david.faust@oracle.com> Cc: Jose Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com> Cc: Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251202180220.11128-2-cupertino.miranda@oracle.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 4bb7ea946a370707315ab774432963ce47291946 upstream.
Fix an edge case in __mark_chain_precision() which prematurely stops
backtracking instructions in a state if it happens that state's first
and last instruction indexes are the same. This situations doesn't
necessarily mean that there were no instructions simulated in a state,
but rather that we starting from the instruction, jumped around a bit,
and then ended up at the same instruction before checkpointing or
marking precision.
To distinguish between these two possible situations, we need to consult
jump history. If it's empty or contain a single record "bridging" parent
state and first instruction of processed state, then we indeed
backtracked all instructions in this state. But if history is not empty,
we are definitely not done yet.
Move this logic inside get_prev_insn_idx() to contain it more nicely.
Use -ENOENT return code to denote "we are out of instructions"
situation.
This bug was exposed by verifier_loop1.c's bounded_recursion subtest, once
the next fix in this patch set is applied.
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231110002638.4168352-3-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit e9bd9c498cb0f5843996dbe5cbce7a1836a83c70 upstream.
Range propagation must not affect subreg_def marks, otherwise the
following example is rewritten by verifier incorrectly when
BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag is set:
0: call bpf_ktime_get_ns call bpf_ktime_get_ns
1: r0 &= 0x7fffffff after verifier r0 &= 0x7fffffff
2: w1 = w0 rewrites w1 = w0
3: if w0 < 10 goto +0 --------------> r11 = 0x2f5674a6 (r)
4: r1 >>= 32 r11 <<= 32 (r)
5: r0 = r1 r1 |= r11 (r)
6: exit; if w0 < 0xa goto pc+0
r1 >>= 32
r0 = r1
exit
(or zero extension of w1 at (2) is missing for architectures that
require zero extension for upper register half).
The following happens w/o this patch:
- r0 is marked as not a subreg at (0);
- w1 is marked as subreg at (2);
- w1 subreg_def is overridden at (3) by copy_register_state();
- w1 is read at (5) but mark_insn_zext() does not mark (2)
for zero extension, because w1 subreg_def is not set;
- because of BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag verifier inserts random
value for hi32 bits of (2) (marked (r));
- this random value is read at (5).
Fixes: 75748837b7e5 ("bpf: Propagate scalar ranges through register assignments.")
Reported-by: Lonial Con <kongln9170@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Lonial Con <kongln9170@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/7e2aa30a62d740db182c170fdd8f81c596df280d.camel@gmail.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240924210844.1758441-1-eddyz87@gmail.com
[ shung-hsi.yu: sync_linked_regs() was called find_equal_scalars() before commit
4bf79f9be434 ("bpf: Track equal scalars history on per-instruction level"), and
modification is done because there is only a single call to
copy_register_state() before commit 98d7ca374ba4 ("bpf: Track delta between
"linked" registers."). ]
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 434247637c66e1be2bc71a9987d4c3f0d8672387 ] The kzmalloc call in bpf_check can fail when memory is very fragmented, which in turn can lead to an OOM kill. Use kvzmalloc to fall back to vmalloc when memory is too fragmented to allocate an order 3 sized bpf verifier environment. Admittedly this is not a very common case, and only happens on systems where memory has already been squeezed close to the limit, but this does not seem like much of a hot path, and it's a simple enough fix. Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241008170735.16766766@imladris.surriel.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 6715df8d5d24655b9fd368e904028112b54c7de1 upstream.
This commits updates the following functions to allow reads from
uninitialized stack locations when env->allow_uninit_stack option is
enabled:
- check_stack_read_fixed_off()
- check_stack_range_initialized(), called from:
- check_stack_read_var_off()
- check_helper_mem_access()
Such change allows to relax logic in stacksafe() to treat STACK_MISC
and STACK_INVALID in a same way and make the following stack slot
configurations equivalent:
| Cached state | Current state |
| stack slot | stack slot |
|------------------+------------------|
| STACK_INVALID or | STACK_INVALID or |
| STACK_MISC | STACK_SPILL or |
| | STACK_MISC or |
| | STACK_ZERO or |
| | STACK_DYNPTR |
This leads to significant verification speed gains (see below).
The idea was suggested by Andrii Nakryiko [1] and initial patch was
created by Alexei Starovoitov [2].
Currently the env->allow_uninit_stack is allowed for programs loaded
by users with CAP_PERFMON or CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.
A number of test cases from verifier/*.c were expecting uninitialized
stack access to be an error. These test cases were updated to execute
in unprivileged mode (thus preserving the tests).
The test progs/test_global_func10.c expected "invalid indirect read
from stack" error message because of the access to uninitialized
memory region. This error is no longer possible in privileged mode.
The test is updated to provoke an error "invalid indirect access to
stack" because of access to invalid stack address (such error is not
verified by progs/test_global_func*.c series of tests).
The following tests had to be removed because these can't be made
unprivileged:
- verifier/sock.c:
- "sk_storage_get(map, skb->sk, &stack_value, 1): partially init
stack_value"
BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS programs are not executed in unprivileged mode.
- verifier/var_off.c:
- "indirect variable-offset stack access, max_off+size > max_initialized"
- "indirect variable-offset stack access, uninitialized"
These tests verify that access to uninitialized stack values is
detected when stack offset is not a constant. However, variable
stack access is prohibited in unprivileged mode, thus these tests
are no longer valid.
* * *
Here is veristat log comparing this patch with current master on a
set of selftest binaries listed in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.cfg
and cilium BPF binaries (see [3]):
$ ./veristat -e file,prog,states -C -f 'states_pct<-30' master.log current.log
File Program States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)
-------------------------- -------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------------
bpf_host.o tail_handle_ipv6_from_host 349 244 -105 (-30.09%)
bpf_host.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 1320 895 -425 (-32.20%)
bpf_lxc.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 1320 895 -425 (-32.20%)
bpf_sock.o cil_sock4_connect 70 48 -22 (-31.43%)
bpf_sock.o cil_sock4_sendmsg 68 46 -22 (-32.35%)
bpf_xdp.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 1554 803 -751 (-48.33%)
bpf_xdp.o tail_lb_ipv4 6457 2473 -3984 (-61.70%)
bpf_xdp.o tail_lb_ipv6 7249 3908 -3341 (-46.09%)
pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.o on_event 287 145 -142 (-49.48%)
strobemeta.bpf.o on_event 15915 4772 -11143 (-70.02%)
strobemeta_nounroll2.bpf.o on_event 17087 3820 -13267 (-77.64%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_tc 21271 6635 -14636 (-68.81%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.o syncookie_xdp 23122 6024 -17098 (-73.95%)
-------------------------- -------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------------
Note: I limited selection by states_pct<-30%.
Inspection of differences in pyperf600_bpf_loop behavior shows that
the following patch for the test removes almost all differences:
- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pyperf.h
+ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/pyperf.h
@ -266,8 +266,8 @ int __on_event(struct bpf_raw_tracepoint_args *ctx)
}
if (event->pthread_match || !pidData->use_tls) {
- void* frame_ptr;
- FrameData frame;
+ void* frame_ptr = 0;
+ FrameData frame = {};
Symbol sym = {};
int cur_cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id();
W/o this patch the difference comes from the following pattern
(for different variables):
static bool get_frame_data(... FrameData *frame ...)
{
...
bpf_probe_read_user(&frame->f_code, ...);
if (!frame->f_code)
return false;
...
bpf_probe_read_user(&frame->co_name, ...);
if (frame->co_name)
...;
}
int __on_event(struct bpf_raw_tracepoint_args *ctx)
{
FrameData frame;
...
get_frame_data(... &frame ...) // indirectly via a bpf_loop & callback
...
}
SEC("raw_tracepoint/kfree_skb")
int on_event(struct bpf_raw_tracepoint_args* ctx)
{
...
ret |= __on_event(ctx);
ret |= __on_event(ctx);
...
}
With regards to value `frame->co_name` the following is important:
- Because of the conditional `if (!frame->f_code)` each call to
__on_event() produces two states, one with `frame->co_name` marked
as STACK_MISC, another with it as is (and marked STACK_INVALID on a
first call).
- The call to bpf_probe_read_user() does not mark stack slots
corresponding to `&frame->co_name` as REG_LIVE_WRITTEN but it marks
these slots as BPF_MISC, this happens because of the following loop
in the check_helper_call():
for (i = 0; i < meta.access_size; i++) {
err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, meta.regno, i, BPF_B,
BPF_WRITE, -1, false);
if (err)
return err;
}
Note the size of the write, it is a one byte write for each byte
touched by a helper. The BPF_B write does not lead to write marks
for the target stack slot.
- Which means that w/o this patch when second __on_event() call is
verified `if (frame->co_name)` will propagate read marks first to a
stack slot with STACK_MISC marks and second to a stack slot with
STACK_INVALID marks and these states would be considered different.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzY3e+ZuC6HUa8dCiUovQRg2SzEk7M-dSkqNZyn=xEmnPA@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQKs2i1iuZ5SUGuJtxWVfGYR9kDgYKhq3rNV+kBLQCu7rA@mail.gmail.com/
[3] git@github.com:anakryiko/cilium.git
Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Co-developed-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230219200427.606541-2-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxim@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 98e948fb60d41447fd8d2d0c3b8637fc6b6dc26d ]
We have seen an influx of syzkaller reports where a BPF program attached to
a tracepoint triggers a locking rule violation by performing a map_delete
on a sockmap/sockhash.
We don't intend to support this artificial use scenario. Extend the
existing verifier allowed-program-type check for updating sockmap/sockhash
to also cover deleting from a map.
From now on only BPF programs which were previously allowed to update
sockmap/sockhash can delete from these map types.
Fixes: ff9105993240 ("bpf, sockmap: Prevent lock inversion deadlock in map delete elem")
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Reported-by: syzbot+ec941d6e24f633a59172@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Tested-by: syzbot+ec941d6e24f633a59172@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ec941d6e24f633a59172
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240527-sockmap-verify-deletes-v1-1-944b372f2101@cloudflare.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit ecc6a2101840177e57c925c102d2d29f260d37c8 ]
This patch re-introduces protection against the size of access to stack
memory being negative; the access size can appear negative as a result
of overflowing its signed int representation. This should not actually
happen, as there are other protections along the way, but we should
protect against it anyway. One code path was missing such protections
(fixed in the previous patch in the series), causing out-of-bounds array
accesses in check_stack_range_initialized(). This patch causes the
verification of a program with such a non-sensical access size to fail.
This check used to exist in a more indirect way, but was inadvertendly
removed in a833a17aeac7.
Fixes: a833a17aeac7 ("bpf: Fix verification of indirect var-off stack access")
Reported-by: syzbot+33f4297b5f927648741a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+aafd0513053a1cbf52ef@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQLORV5PT0iTAhRER+iLBTkByCYNBYyvBSgjN1T31K+gOw@mail.gmail.com/
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240327024245.318299-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit a833a17aeac73b33f79433d7cee68d5cafd71e4f ]
This patch fixes a bug around the verification of possibly-zero-sized
stack accesses. When the access was done through a var-offset stack
pointer, check_stack_access_within_bounds was incorrectly computing the
maximum-offset of a zero-sized read to be the same as the register's min
offset. Instead, we have to take in account the register's maximum
possible value. The patch also simplifies how the max offset is checked;
the check is now simpler than for min offset.
The bug was allowing accesses to erroneously pass the
check_stack_access_within_bounds() checks, only to later crash in
check_stack_range_initialized() when all the possibly-affected stack
slots are iterated (this time with a correct max offset).
check_stack_range_initialized() is relying on
check_stack_access_within_bounds() for its accesses to the
stack-tracking vector to be within bounds; in the case of zero-sized
accesses, we were essentially only verifying that the lowest possible
slot was within bounds. We would crash when the max-offset of the stack
pointer was >= 0 (which shouldn't pass verification, and hopefully is
not something anyone's code attempts to do in practice).
Thanks Hao for reporting!
Fixes: 01f810ace9ed3 ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access")
Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231207041150.229139-2-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsZGEUaRCHsmaX=h-efVogsRfK1FPxmkgb0Os_frnHiNdw@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>