Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Patch "bpf: enhance verifier to understand stack pointer arithmetic" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 1 participant 1 message May 11, 2017

Subsystems (3)
Stable branch BPF BPF core
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer Applied
#0 lore raw

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

bpf: enhance verifier to understand stack pointer arithmetic

to the 4.9-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-enhance-verifier-to-understand-stack-pointer-arithmetic.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 1 line

From foo@baz Thu May 11 11:08:24 CEST 2017

From: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:52:42 -0700
Subject: bpf: enhance verifier to understand stack pointer arithmetic

From: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 332270fdc8b6fba07d059a9ad44df9e1a2ad4529 ]

llvm 4.0 and above generates the code like below:
....
440: (b7) r1 = 15
441: (05) goto pc+73
515: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r10 -152)
516: (bf) r7 = r10
517: (07) r7 += -112
518: (bf) r2 = r7
519: (0f) r2 += r1
520: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0)
521: (73) *(u8 *)(r2 +45) = r1
....
and the verifier complains "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'" for insn #521. This is because verifier marks register r2 as unknown value after #519 where r2 is a stack pointer and r1 holds a constant value.

Teach verifier to recognize "stack_ptr + imm" and "stack_ptr + reg with const val" as valid stack_ptr with new offset.

Signed-off-by Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
Acked-by Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
Acked-by Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c       |   11 +++++++++++
 samples/bpf/test_verifier.c |   18 ++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +11 -0
@@ -1749,6 +1749,17 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif
 			return 0;
 		} else if (opcode == BPF_ADD &&
 			   BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 &&
+			   dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK &&
+			   ((BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
+			     regs[insn->src_reg].type == CONST_IMM) ||
+			    BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K)) {
+			if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X)
+				dst_reg->imm += regs[insn->src_reg].imm;
+			else
+				dst_reg->imm += insn->imm;
+			return 0;
+		} else if (opcode == BPF_ADD &&
+			   BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 &&
 			   (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET ||
 			    (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
 			     regs[insn->src_reg].type == PTR_TO_PACKET))) {
samples/bpf/test_verifier.c +12 -6
@@ -1218,16 +1218,22 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = ACCEPT,
 	},
 	{
-		"unpriv: obfuscate stack pointer",
+		"stack pointer arithmetic",
 		.insns = {
-			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
-			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
-			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, -10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, -10),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(0, BPF_REG_2, 4, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(0, BPF_REG_2, 4, 0),
 			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
 			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 		},
-		.errstr_unpriv = "R2 pointer arithmetic",
-		.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 		.result = ACCEPT,
 	},
 	{

Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are

queue-4.9/bpf-enhance-verifier-to-understand-stack-pointer-arithmetic.patch