This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings
to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
bpf-fix-the-off-by-two-error-in-range-markings.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.14 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From foo@baz Thu Sep 8 01:55:11 PM CEST 2022
From: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 18:38:55 +0300
Subject: bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings
To: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20220906153855.2515437-4-ovidiu.panait@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit 2fa7d94afc1afbb4d702760c058dc2d7ed30f226 upstream.
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>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx
[OP: only cherry-pick selftest changes applicable to 4.14]
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -7438,10 +7438,10 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, 1),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -7494,10 +7494,10 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -7603,9 +7603,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
@@ -7770,9 +7770,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLE, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, 1),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from ovidiu.panait@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
queue-4.14/bpf-verifer-adjust_scalar_min_max_vals-to-always-call-update_reg_bounds.patch
queue-4.14/selftests-bpf-fix-test_align-verifier-log-patterns.patch
queue-4.14/bpf-fix-the-off-by-two-error-in-range-markings.patch
