Commmits 57a09bf0a4 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers")
and 484611357c ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") by themselves
are correct, but in combination they make state equivalence ignore 'id' field
of the register state which can lead to accepting invalid program.
Fixes: 57a09bf0a4 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers")
Fixes: 484611357c ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
All conflicts were simple overlapping changes except perhaps
for the Thunder driver.
That driver has a change_mtu method explicitly for sending
a message to the hardware. If that fails it returns an
error.
Normally a driver doesn't need an ndo_change_mtu method becuase those
are usually just range changes, which are now handled generically.
But since this extra operation is needed in the Thunder driver, it has
to stay.
However, if the message send fails we have to restore the original
MTU before the change because the entire call chain expects that if
an error is thrown by ndo_change_mtu then the MTU did not change.
Therefore code is added to nicvf_change_mtu to remember the original
MTU, and to restore it upon nicvf_update_hw_max_frs() failue.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
I made some invalid assumptions with BPF_AND and BPF_MOD that could result in
invalid accesses to bpf map entries. Fix this up by doing a few things
1) Kill BPF_MOD support. This doesn't actually get used by the compiler in real
life and just adds extra complexity.
2) Fix the logic for BPF_AND, don't allow AND of negative numbers and set the
minimum value to 0 for positive AND's.
3) Don't do operations on the ranges if they are set to the limits, as they are
by definition undefined, and allowing arithmetic operations on those values
could make them appear valid when they really aren't.
This fixes the testcase provided by Jann as well as a few other theoretical
problems.
Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
A BPF program is required to check the return register of a
map_elem_lookup() call before accessing memory. The verifier keeps
track of this by converting the type of the result register from
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE after a conditional
jump ensures safety. This check is currently exclusively performed
for the result register 0.
In the event the compiler reorders instructions, BPF_MOV64_REG
instructions may be moved before the conditional jump which causes
them to keep their type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL to which the
verifier objects when the register is accessed:
0: (b7) r1 = 10
1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1
2: (bf) r2 = r10
3: (07) r2 += -8
4: (18) r1 = 0x59c00000
6: (85) call 1
7: (bf) r4 = r0
8: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1
R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8) R4=map_value_or_null(ks=8,vs=8) R10=fp
9: (7a) *(u64 *)(r4 +0) = 0
R4 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null'
This commit extends the verifier to keep track of all identical
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers after a map_elem_lookup() by
assigning them an ID and then marking them all when the conditional
jump is observed.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Suppose you have a map array value that is something like this
struct foo {
unsigned iter;
int array[SOME_CONSTANT];
};
You can easily insert this into an array, but you cannot modify the contents of
foo->array[] after the fact. This is because we have no way to verify we won't
go off the end of the array at verification time. This patch provides a start
for this work. We accomplish this by keeping track of a minimum and maximum
value a register could be while we're checking the code. Then at the time we
try to do an access into a MAP_VALUE we verify that the maximum offset into that
region is a valid access into that memory region. So in practice, code such as
this
unsigned index = 0;
if (foo->iter >= SOME_CONSTANT)
foo->iter = index;
else
index = foo->iter++;
foo->array[index] = bar;
would be allowed, as we can verify that index will always be between 0 and
SOME_CONSTANT-1. If you wish to use signed values you'll have to have an extra
check to make sure the index isn't less than 0, or do something like index %=
SOME_CONSTANT.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Advanced JIT compilers and translators may want to use
eBPF verifier as a base for parsers or to perform custom
checks and validations.
Add ability for external users to invoke the verifier
and provide callbacks to be invoked for every intruction
checked. For now only add most basic callback for
per-instruction pre-interpretation checks is added. More
advanced users may also like to have per-instruction post
callback and state comparison callback.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Move verifier's internal structures to a header file and
prefix their names with bpf_ to avoid potential namespace
conflicts. Those structures will soon be used by external
analyzers.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
