On 1/24/20 8:10 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
do_refine_retval_range() is called to refine return values from specified helpers, probe_read_str and get_stack at the moment, the reasoning is because both have a max value as part of their input arguments and because the helper ensure the return value will not be larger than this we can set umax and smax values of the return register, r0. However, the return value is a signed integer so setting umax is incorrect It leads to further confusion when the do_refine_retval_range() then calls, __reg_deduce_bounds() which will see a umax value as meaning the value is unsigned and then assuming it is unsigned set the smin = umin which in this case results in 'smin = 0' and an 'smax = X' where X is the input argument from the helper call. Here are the comments from _reg_deduce_bounds() on why this would be safe to do. /* Learn sign from unsigned bounds. Signed bounds cross the sign * boundary, so we must be careful. */ if ((s64)reg->umax_value >= 0) { /* Positive. We can't learn anything from the smin, but smax * is positive, hence safe. */ reg->smin_value = reg->umin_value; reg->smax_value = reg->umax_value = min_t(u64, reg->smax_value, reg->umax_value); But now we incorrectly have a return value with type int with the signed bounds (0,X). Suppose the return value is negative, which is possible the we have the verifier and reality out of sync. Among other things this may result in any error handling code being falsely detected as dead-code and removed. For instance the example below shows using bpf_probe_read_str() causes the error path to be identified as dead code and removed.From the 'llvm-object -S' dump,r2 = 100 call 45 if r0 s< 0 goto +4 r4 = *(u32 *)(r7 + 0) But from dump xlate (b7) r2 = 100 (85) call bpf_probe_read_compat_str#-96768 (61) r4 = *(u32 *)(r7 +0) <-- dropped if goto Due to verifier state after call being R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=100,var_off=(0x0; 0x7f)) To fix omit setting the umax value because its not safe. The only actual bounds we know is the smax. This results in the correct bounds (SMIN, X) where X is the max length from the helper. After this the new verifier state looks like the following after call 45. R0=inv(id=0,smax_value=100) Then xlated version no longer removed dead code giving the expected result, (b7) r2 = 100 (85) call bpf_probe_read_compat_str#-96768 (c5) if r0 s< 0x0 goto pc+4 (61) r4 = *(u32 *)(r7 +0) Note, bpf_probe_read_* calls are root only so we wont hit this case with non-root bpf users. Fixes: 849fa50662fbc ("bpf: verifier, refine bounds may clamp umin to 0 incorrectly") Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
Been reviewing this fix internally, therefore also: Reviewed-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Still waiting to give Yonghong a chance to take a look as well before applying and getting bpf PR out (should be roughly in morning US time). Thanks, Daniel
