@@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ struct bpf_call_arg_meta {
bool pkt_access;
int regno;
int access_size;
+ s64 msize_smax_value;
+ u64 msize_umax_value;
};
static DEFINE_MUTEX(bpf_verifier_lock);
@@ -1994,6 +1996,12 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
} else if (arg_type_is_mem_size(arg_type)) {
bool zero_size_allowed = (arg_type == ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO);
+ /* remember the mem_size which may be used later
+ * to refine return values.
+ */
+ meta->msize_smax_value = reg->smax_value;
+ meta->msize_umax_value = reg->umax_value;
+
/* The register is SCALAR_VALUE; the access check
* happens using its boundaries.
*/
@@ -2333,6 +2341,21 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
return 0;
}
+static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type,
+ int func_id,
+ struct bpf_call_arg_meta *meta)
+{
+ struct bpf_reg_state *ret_reg = ®s[BPF_REG_0];
+
+ if (ret_type != RET_INTEGER ||
+ (func_id != BPF_FUNC_get_stack &&
+ func_id != BPF_FUNC_probe_read_str))
+ return;
+
+ ret_reg->smax_value = meta->msize_smax_value;
+ ret_reg->umax_value = meta->msize_umax_value;
+}
+
static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx)
{
const struct bpf_func_proto *fn = NULL;
@@ -2456,6 +2479,8 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn
return -EINVAL;
}
+ do_refine_retval_range(regs, fn->ret_type, func_id, &meta);
+
err = check_map_func_compatibility(env, meta.map_ptr, func_id);
if (err)
return err;
The special property of return values for helpers bpf_get_stack and bpf_probe_read_str are captured in verifier. Both helpers return a negative error code or a length, which is equal to or smaller than the buffer size argument. This additional information in the verifier can avoid the condition such as "retval > bufsize" in the bpf program. For example, for the code blow, usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK); if (usize < 0 || usize > max_len) return 0; The verifier may have the following errors: 52: (85) call bpf_get_stack#65 R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R1_w=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R3_w=inv800 R4_w=inv256 R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R9_w=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1 53: (bf) r8 = r0 54: (bf) r1 = r8 55: (67) r1 <<= 32 56: (bf) r2 = r1 57: (77) r2 >>= 32 58: (25) if r2 > 0x31f goto pc+33 R0=inv(id=0) R1=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808512, umax_value=18446744069414584320, var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000000)) R2=inv(id=0,umax_value=799,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff)) R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R8=inv(id=0) R9=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1 59: (1f) r9 -= r8 60: (c7) r1 s>>= 32 61: (bf) r2 = r7 62: (0f) r2 += r1 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed The failure is due to llvm compiler optimization where register "r2", which is a copy of "r1", is tested for condition while later on "r1" is used for map_ptr operation. The verifier is not able to track such inst sequence effectively. Without the "usize > max_len" condition, there is no llvm optimization and the below generated code passed verifier: 52: (85) call bpf_get_stack#65 R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R1_w=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R3_w=inv800 R4_w=inv256 R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R9_w=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1 53: (b7) r1 = 0 54: (bf) r8 = r0 55: (67) r8 <<= 32 56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32 57: (6d) if r1 s> r8 goto pc+24 R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R1=inv0 R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R8=inv(id=0,umax_value=800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff)) R9=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1 58: (bf) r2 = r7 59: (0f) r2 += r8 60: (1f) r9 -= r8 61: (bf) r1 = r6 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)