6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit a41b3828ec056a631ad22413d4560017fed5c3bd ] This test was added because of a bug in verifier.c:sync_linked_regs(), upon range propagation it destroyed subreg_def marks for registers. The test is written in a way to return an upper half of a register that is affected by range propagation and must have it's subreg_def preserved. This gives a return value of 0 and leads to undefined return value if subreg_def mark is not preserved. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240924210844.1758441-2-eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c index 13b29a7faa71a..d24d3a36ec144 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c @@ -656,4 +656,71 @@ __naked void two_old_ids_one_cur_id(void) : __clobber_all); } +SEC("socket") +/* Note the flag, see verifier.c:opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() */ +__flag(BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32) +__success +/* This test was added because of a bug in verifier.c:sync_linked_regs(), + * upon range propagation it destroyed subreg_def marks for registers. + * The subreg_def mark is used to decide whether zero extension instructions + * are needed when register is read. When BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is set it + * also causes generation of statements to randomize upper halves of + * read registers. + * + * The test is written in a way to return an upper half of a register + * that is affected by range propagation and must have it's subreg_def + * preserved. This gives a return value of 0 and leads to undefined + * return value if subreg_def mark is not preserved. + */ +__retval(0) +/* Check that verifier believes r1/r0 are zero at exit */ +__log_level(2) +__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1_w=0") +__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0") +__msg("6: (95) exit") +__msg("from 3 to 4") +__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32 ; R1_w=0") +__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1 ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0") +__msg("6: (95) exit") +/* Verify that statements to randomize upper half of r1 had not been + * generated. + */ +__xlated("call unknown") +__xlated("r0 &= 2147483647") +__xlated("w1 = w0") +/* This is how disasm.c prints BPF_ZEXT_REG at the moment, x86 and arm + * are the only CI archs that do not need zero extension for subregs. + */ +#if !defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && !defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) +__xlated("w1 = w1") +#endif +__xlated("if w0 < 0xa goto pc+0") +__xlated("r1 >>= 32") +__xlated("r0 = r1") +__xlated("exit") +__naked void linked_regs_and_subreg_def(void) +{ + asm volatile ( + "call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];" + /* make sure r0 is in 32-bit range, otherwise w1 = w0 won't + * assign same IDs to registers. + */ + "r0 &= 0x7fffffff;" + /* link w1 and w0 via ID */ + "w1 = w0;" + /* 'if' statement propagates range info from w0 to w1, + * but should not affect w1->subreg_def property. + */ + "if w0 < 10 goto +0;" + /* r1 is read here, on archs that require subreg zero + * extension this would cause zext patch generation. + */ + "r1 >>= 32;" + "r0 = r1;" + "exit;" + : + : __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns) + : __clobber_all); +} + char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; -- 2.43.0
