Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: update 32-bit bounds when the lower 32-bit value is not wrapping
From: Xu Kuohai
Date: Tue Mar 07 2023 - 04:21:50 EST
On 3/8/2023 6:04 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
The following XDP prog is accepted by verifier.
0: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0) ; R2_w=pkt(off=0,r=0,imm=0)
1: (61) r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +4) ; R3_w=pkt_end(off=0,imm=0)
2: (bf) r1 = r2
3: (07) r1 += 1
4: (2d) if r1 > r3 goto pc+6
5: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 +0) ; R1_w=scalar(umax=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
6: (b4) w0 = 0x7fffff10
7: (0c) w1 += w0 ; R1_w=scalar(umin=0x7fffff10,umax=0x8000000f,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
8: (b4) w0 = 0x80000000
9: (04) w0 += 1
10: (ae) if w0 < w1 goto pc-2
11: (b7) r0 = 0
12: (95) exit
while the following 64-bit version is rejected.
0: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0) ; R2_w=pkt(off=0,r=0,imm=0)
1: (61) r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 +4) ; R3_w=pkt_end(off=0,imm=0)
2: (bf) r1 = r2
3: (07) r1 += 1
4: (2d) if r1 > r3 goto pc+8
5: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 +0) ; R1_w=scalar(umax=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
6: (18) r0 = 0x7fffffffffffff10
8: (0f) r1 += r0 ; R1_w=scalar(umin=0x7fffffffffffff10,umax=0x800000000000000f)
9: (18) r0 = 0x8000000000000000
11: (07) r0 += 1
12: (ad) if r0 < r1 goto pc-2
13: (b7) r0 = 0
14: (95) exit
The verifier log says:
[...]
from 12 to 11: R0_w=-9223372036854775794 R1=scalar(umin=9223372036854775823,umax=9223372036854775823,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0xffffffff))
11: (07) r0 += 1 ; R0_w=-9223372036854775793
12: (ad) if r0 < r1 goto pc-2 ; R0_w=-9223372036854775793 R1=scalar(umin=9223372036854775823,umax=9223372036854775823,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0xffffffff))
13: safe
from 12 to 11: R0_w=-9223372036854775793 R1=scalar(umin=9223372036854775824,umax=9223372036854775823,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0xffffffff))
11: (07) r0 += 1 ; R0_w=-9223372036854775792
12: (ad) if r0 < r1 goto pc-2 ; R0_w=-9223372036854775792 R1=scalar(umin=9223372036854775824,umax=9223372036854775823,var_off=(0x8000000000000000; 0xffffffff))
13: safe
[...]
The loop crosses termination condition r0 == r1.umax, and does not stop.
The reason is that when the verifier enumerates to r1.umin == r1.umax, the value
0x800000000000000f of r1.umin is greater than U32_MAX, so __reg_combine_64_into_32
sets the u32 range of r1 to [0, U32_MAX] instead of marking r1 as a constant,
making is_branch_taken() in check_cond_jmp_op() be skipped.
To fix it, update 32-bit bounds when the lower 32-bit value is not wrapping,
even if the 64-bit value is beyond the range of [0, U32_MAX] or [S32_MIN, S32_MAX].
Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oops, missing fixes tag, will resend
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b2116ca78d9a..64c9ee3857ec 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2013,26 +2013,21 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
-static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a)
-{
- return a >= S32_MIN && a <= S32_MAX;
-}
-
-static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a)
-{
- return a >= U32_MIN && a <= U32_MAX;
-}
-
static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
+ s64 smin = reg->smin_value;
+ s64 smax = reg->smax_value;
+ u64 umin = reg->umin_value;
+ u64 umax = reg->umax_value;
+
__mark_reg32_unbounded(reg);
- if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) {
- reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value;
- reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value;
+ if ((u64)(smax - smin) <= (u64)U32_MAX && (s32)smin <= (s32)smax) {
+ reg->s32_min_value = (s32)smin;
+ reg->s32_max_value = (s32)smax;
}
- if (__reg64_bound_u32(reg->umin_value) && __reg64_bound_u32(reg->umax_value)) {
- reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value;
- reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value;
+ if (umax - umin <= U32_MAX && (u32)umin <= (u32)umax) {
+ reg->u32_min_value = (u32)umin;
+ reg->u32_max_value = (u32)umax;
}
reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}