On 5/28/20 2:30 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
Yonghong Song wrote:
With the latest trunk llvm (llvm 11), I hit a verifier issue for
test_prog subtest test_verif_scale1.
The following simplified example illustrate the issue:
w9 = 0 /* R9_w=inv0 */
r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) /* __sk_buff->data_end */
r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76) /* __sk_buff->data */
......
w2 = w9 /* R2_w=inv0 */
r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
r6 += r2 /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
r3 = r6 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
r3 += 14 /* R3_w=inv(id=0) */
if r3 > r8 goto end
r5 = *(u32 *)(r6 + 0) /* R6_w=inv(id=0) */
<== error here: R6 invalid mem access 'inv'
...
end:
In real test_verif_scale1 code, "w9 = 0" and "w2 = w9" are in
different basic blocks.
In the above, after "r6 += r2", r6 becomes a scalar, which eventually
caused the memory access error. The correct register state should be
a pkt pointer.
The inprecise register state starts at "w2 = w9".
The 32bit register w9 is 0, in __reg_assign_32_into_64(),
the 64bit reg->smax_value is assigned to be U32_MAX.
The 64bit reg->smin_value is 0 and the 64bit register
itself remains constant based on reg->var_off.
In adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the verifier checks for a known constant,
smin_val must be equal to smax_val. Since they are not equal,
the verifier decides r6 is a unknown scalar, which caused later failure.
The llvm10 does not have this issue as it generates different code:
w9 = 0 /* R9_w=inv0 */
r8 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) /* __sk_buff->data_end */
r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 76) /* __sk_buff->data */
......
r6 = r7 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
r6 += r9 /* R6_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
r3 = r6 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0) */
r3 += 14 /* R3_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=0,imm=0) */
if r3 > r8 goto end
...
To fix the issue, if 32bit register is a const 0,
then just assign max vaue 0 to 64bit register smax_value as well.
Fixes: 3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
Thanks!
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 8d7ee40e2748..5123ce54695f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1174,6 +1174,9 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->smin_value = 0;
if (reg->s32_max_value > 0)
reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
+ else if (reg->s32_max_value == 0 && reg->s32_min_value == 0 &&
+ tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
+ reg->smax_value = 0; /* const 0 */
else
reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
}
--
2.24.1
How about the following, I think it will also cover the case above. We should be
checking 'smin_value > 0' as well I believe.
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b3d2590..80d22de 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1217,14 +1217,14 @@ static void __reg_assign_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
* but must be positive otherwise set to worse case bounds
* and refine later from tnum.
*/
+ if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0 && reg->s32_max_value >= 0)
I agree that s32_min_value needs to be checked. Otherwise, a negative
s32_min_value, not sure how to derive reg->smax_value....
+ reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
+ else
+ reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
if (reg->s32_min_value > 0)
reg->smin_value = reg->s32_min_value;
else
reg->smin_value = 0;
- if (reg->s32_min_value >= 0 && reg->s32_max_value > 0)
- reg->smax_value = reg->s32_max_value;
- else
- reg->smax_value = U32_MAX;
}
This causes selftests failure I pasted it at the end of the email. By my
analysis what happens here is after line 10 we get different bounds
and this falls out so that we just miss triggering the failure case in
check_reg_sane_offset()
if (smin >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || smin <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
verbose(env, "value %lld makes %s pointer be out of bounds\n",
smin, reg_type_str[type]);
return false;
}
However (would need to check, improve verifier test) that should still
fail as soon as its read. WDYT? I can try to roll it into your test if
Which read, you mean r0 += r1? Yes, r1 range seems pretty big,
R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff))
so a failure should be right, I guess.
you want or if you have time go for it. Let me know.
Since this is a little more involved and you are more familiar with
the code, please go ahead to make the change.
Thanks!
# ./test_verifier -v 66
#66/p bounds check after truncation of boundary-crossing range (2) FAIL
Unexpected success to load!
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0
1: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
1: (bf) r2 = r10
2: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
2: (07) r2 += -8
3: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8883dba1e800
5: R1_w=map_ptr(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R2_w=fp-8 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1
6: R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+9
R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
7: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
7: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
8: (07) r1 += 2147483584
9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=2147483584,umax_value=2147483839,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
9: (07) r1 += 2147483584
10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=4294967168,umax_value=4294967423,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
10: (bc) w1 = w1
11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
12: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-2147483584,smax_value=2147483711) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
13: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-4294967168,smax_value=127) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
13: (77) r1 >>= 8
14: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
14: (0f) r0 += r1
last_idx 14 first_idx 0
regs=2 stack=0 before 13: (77) r1 >>= 8
regs=2 stack=0 before 12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
regs=2 stack=0 before 11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
regs=2 stack=0 before 10: (bc) w1 = w1
regs=2 stack=0 before 9: (07) r1 += 2147483584
regs=2 stack=0 before 8: (07) r1 += 2147483584
regs=2 stack=0 before 7: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r0 +0)
15: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R1_w=invP(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
15: (b7) r0 = 0
16: R0=inv0 R1=invP(id=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
16: (95) exit
from 6 to 16: safe
processed 17 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 1 peak_states 1 mark_read 1
