On 11/30/21 7:16 PM, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that
appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error,
arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts
from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):
// 1. Passes the verifier:
if (data + 8 > data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
// 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass):
if (data + 7 >= data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong
direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code
starts failing in the verifier:
// 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1.
if (data + 8 >= data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into
off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests
written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however,
they should be accepted.
This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the
right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the one
that should actually fail.
Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns")
Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests")
Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
After this patch is merged, I'm going to submit another patch to
bpf-next, that will add new selftests for this bug.
Thanks for the fix, pls post the selftests for bpf tree; it's okay to route
them via bpf so they can go via CI for both trees eventually.
