From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit d35af0a7feb077c43ff0233bba5a8c6e75b73e35 ]
In BPF all global functions, and BPF helpers return a 64-bit
value. For kfunc calls, this is not the case, and they can return
e.g. 32-bit values.
The return register R0 for kfuncs calls can therefore be marked as
subreg_def != DEF_NOT_SUBREG. In general, if a register is marked with
subreg_def != DEF_NOT_SUBREG, some archs (where bpf_jit_needs_zext()
returns true) require the verifier to insert explicit zero-extension
instructions.
For kfuncs calls, however, the caller should do sign/zero extension
for return values. In other words, the compiler is responsible to
insert proper instructions, not the verifier.
An example, provided by Yonghong Song:
$ cat t.c
extern unsigned foo(void);
unsigned bar1(void) {
return foo();
}
unsigned bar2(void) {
if (foo()) return 10; else return 20;
}
$ clang -target bpf -mcpu=v3 -O2 -c t.c && llvm-objdump -d t.o
t.o: file format elf64-bpf
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <bar1>:
0: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -0x1
1: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
0000000000000010 <bar2>:
2: 85 10 00 00 ff ff ff ff call -0x1
3: bc 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = w0
4: b4 00 00 00 14 00 00 00 w0 = 0x14
5: 16 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 if w1 == 0x0 goto +0x1 <LBB1_2>
6: b4 00 00 00 0a 00 00 00 w0 = 0xa
0000000000000038 <LBB1_2>:
7: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
If the return value of 'foo()' is used in the BPF program, the proper
zero-extension will be done.
Currently, the verifier correctly marks, say, a 32-bit return value as
subreg_def != DEF_NOT_SUBREG, but will fail performing the actual
zero-extension, due to a verifier bug in
opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(). load_reg is not properly set to R0,
and the following path will be taken:
if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1)) {
verbose(env, "verifier bug. zext_dst is set, but no reg is defined\n");
return -EFAULT;
}
A longer discussion from v1 can be found in the link below.
Correct the verifier by avoiding doing explicit zero-extension of R0
for kfunc calls. Note that R0 will still be marked as a sub-register
for return values smaller than 64-bit.
Fixes: 83a2881903f3 ("bpf: Account for BPF_FETCH in insn_has_def32()")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221202103620.1915679-1-bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx/
Suggested-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207103540.396496-1-bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b1ca4dbdeecf..488225bb42f6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -12132,6 +12132,10 @@ static int opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (!bpf_jit_needs_zext() && !is_cmpxchg_insn(&insn))
continue;
+ /* Zero-extension is done by the caller. */
+ if (bpf_pseudo_kfunc_call(&insn))
+ continue;
+
if (WARN_ON(load_reg == -1)) {
verbose(env, "verifier bug. zext_dst is set, but no reg is defined\n");
return -EFAULT;
--
2.35.1
