[ 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>
[ Upstream commit ab125ed3ec1c10ccc36bc98c7a4256ad114a3dae ]
When register is spilled onto a stack as a 1/2/4-byte register, we set
slot_type[BPF_REG_SIZE - 1] (plus potentially few more below it,
depending on actual spill size). So to check if some stack slot has
spilled register we need to consult slot_type[7], not slot_type[0].
To avoid the need to remember and double-check this in the future, just
use is_spilled_reg() helper.
Fixes: 27113c59b6d0 ("bpf: Check the other end of slot_type for STACK_SPILL")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205184248.1502704-4-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 291d044fd51f8484066300ee42afecf8c8db7b3a upstream.
BPF_END and BPF_NEG has a different specification for the source bit in
the opcode compared to other ALU/ALU64 instructions, and is either
reserved or use to specify the byte swap endianness. In both cases the
source bit does not encode source operand location, and src_reg is a
reserved field.
backtrack_insn() currently does not differentiate BPF_END and BPF_NEG
from other ALU/ALU64 instructions, which leads to r0 being incorrectly
marked as precise when processing BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END
instructions. This commit teaches backtrack_insn() to correctly mark
precision for such case.
While precise tracking of BPF_NEG and other BPF_END instructions are
correct and does not need fixing, this commit opt to process all BPF_NEG
and BPF_END instructions within the same if-clause to better align with
current convention used in the verifier (e.g. check_alu_op).
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <mmahmoud@redhat.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87jzrrwptf.fsf@toke.dk
Tested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102053913.12004-2-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
