[PATCH 4.12 26/99] bpf, verifier: add additional patterns to evaluate_reg_imm_alu

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

4.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>


[ Upstream commit 43188702b3d98d2792969a3377a30957f05695e6 ]

Currently the verifier does not track imm across alu operations when
the source register is of unknown type. This adds additional pattern
matching to catch this and track imm. We've seen LLVM generating this
pattern while working on cilium.

Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |   62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1650,6 +1650,65 @@ static int evaluate_reg_alu(struct bpf_v
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int evaluate_reg_imm_alu_unknown(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+					struct bpf_insn *insn)
+{
+	struct bpf_reg_state *regs = env->cur_state.regs;
+	struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
+	struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
+	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
+	s64 imm_log2 = __ilog2_u64((long long)dst_reg->imm);
+
+	/* BPF_X code with src_reg->type UNKNOWN_VALUE here. */
+	if (src_reg->imm > 0 && dst_reg->imm) {
+		switch (opcode) {
+		case BPF_ADD:
+			/* dreg += sreg
+			 * where both have zero upper bits. Adding them
+			 * can only result making one more bit non-zero
+			 * in the larger value.
+			 * Ex. 0xffff (imm=48) + 1 (imm=63) = 0x10000 (imm=47)
+			 *     0xffff (imm=48) + 0xffff = 0x1fffe (imm=47)
+			 */
+			dst_reg->imm = min(src_reg->imm, 63 - imm_log2);
+			dst_reg->imm--;
+			break;
+		case BPF_AND:
+			/* dreg &= sreg
+			 * AND can not extend zero bits only shrink
+			 * Ex.  0x00..00ffffff
+			 *    & 0x0f..ffffffff
+			 *     ----------------
+			 *      0x00..00ffffff
+			 */
+			dst_reg->imm = max(src_reg->imm, 63 - imm_log2);
+			break;
+		case BPF_OR:
+			/* dreg |= sreg
+			 * OR can only extend zero bits
+			 * Ex.  0x00..00ffffff
+			 *    | 0x0f..ffffffff
+			 *     ----------------
+			 *      0x0f..00ffffff
+			 */
+			dst_reg->imm = min(src_reg->imm, 63 - imm_log2);
+			break;
+		case BPF_SUB:
+		case BPF_MUL:
+		case BPF_RSH:
+		case BPF_LSH:
+			/* These may be flushed out later */
+		default:
+			mark_reg_unknown_value(regs, insn->dst_reg);
+		}
+	} else {
+		mark_reg_unknown_value(regs, insn->dst_reg);
+	}
+
+	dst_reg->type = UNKNOWN_VALUE;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int evaluate_reg_imm_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 				struct bpf_insn *insn)
 {
@@ -1659,6 +1718,9 @@ static int evaluate_reg_imm_alu(struct b
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
 	u64 dst_imm = dst_reg->imm;
 
+	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && src_reg->type == UNKNOWN_VALUE)
+		return evaluate_reg_imm_alu_unknown(env, insn);
+
 	/* dst_reg->type == CONST_IMM here. Simulate execution of insns
 	 * containing ALU ops. Don't care about overflow or negative
 	 * values, just add/sub/... them; registers are in u64.