diff mbox series

[v2,bpf-next,1/2] bpf: Fix issue in verifying allow_ptr_leaks

Message ID 20230823020703.3790-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Commit d75e30dddf73449bc2d10bb8e2f1a2c446bc67a2
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: Fix an issue in verifing allow_ptr_leaks | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 1342 this patch: 1342
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 12 of 12 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 1353 this patch: 1353
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 1365 this patch: 1365
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 92 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Yafang Shao Aug. 23, 2023, 2:07 a.m. UTC
After we converted the capabilities of our networking-bpf program from
cap_sys_admin to cap_net_admin+cap_bpf, our networking-bpf program
failed to start. Because it failed the bpf verifier, and the error log
is "R3 pointer comparison prohibited".

A simple reproducer as follows,

SEC("cls-ingress")
int ingress(struct __sk_buff *skb)
{
	struct iphdr *iph = (void *)(long)skb->data + sizeof(struct ethhdr);

	if ((long)(iph + 1) > (long)skb->data_end)
		return TC_ACT_STOLEN;
	return TC_ACT_OK;
}

Per discussion with Yonghong and Alexei [1], comparison of two packet
pointers is not a pointer leak. This patch fixes it.

Our local kernel is 6.1.y and we expect this fix to be backported to
6.1.y, so stable is CCed.

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+Nmspr7Si+pxWn8zkE7hX-7s93ugwC+94aXSy4uQ9vBg@mail.gmail.com/

Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 +++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 4ccca1f..b6b60cd 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -14047,6 +14047,12 @@  static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	/* check src2 operand */
+	err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
 		if (insn->imm != 0) {
 			verbose(env, "BPF_JMP/JMP32 uses reserved fields\n");
@@ -14058,12 +14064,13 @@  static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 
-		if (is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
+		src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
+		if (!(reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(dst_reg) && reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(src_reg)) &&
+		    is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d pointer comparison prohibited\n",
 				insn->src_reg);
 			return -EACCES;
 		}
-		src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
 	} else {
 		if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0) {
 			verbose(env, "BPF_JMP/JMP32 uses reserved fields\n");
@@ -14071,12 +14078,6 @@  static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		}
 	}
 
-	/* check src2 operand */
-	err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-
-	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 	is_jmp32 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP32;
 
 	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {