diff mbox series

[bpf,v1,1/2] bpf: Fix max stack depth check for async callbacks

Message ID 20230705144730.235802-2-memxor@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Fix for check_max_stack_depth | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-19 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-20 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-21 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-22 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-24 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-26 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-14 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-18 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-23 success Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-16 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag present in non-next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 20 this patch: 20
netdev/cc_maintainers fail 1 blamed authors not CCed: toke@redhat.com; 8 maintainers not CCed: yhs@fb.com kpsingh@kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com song@kernel.org sdf@google.com jolsa@kernel.org haoluo@google.com toke@redhat.com
netdev/build_clang fail Errors and warnings before: 147 this patch: 303
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 20 this patch: 20
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 103 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-7 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-8 success Logs for veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-6 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-4 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-5 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-25 success Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-27 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-28 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-VM_Test-29 success Logs for veristat

Commit Message

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi July 5, 2023, 2:47 p.m. UTC
The check_max_stack_depth pass happens after the verifier's symbolic
execution, and attempts to walk the call graph of the BPF program,
ensuring that the stack usage stays within bounds for all possible call
chains. There are two cases to consider: bpf_pseudo_func and
bpf_pseudo_call. In the former case, the callback pointer is loaded into
a register, and is assumed that it is passed to some helper later which
calls it (however there is no way to be sure), but the check remains
conservative and accounts the stack usage anyway. For this particular
case, asynchronous callbacks are skipped as they execute asynchronously
when their corresponding event fires.

The case of bpf_pseudo_call is simpler and we know that the call is
definitely made, hence the stack depth of the subprog is accounted for.

However, the current check still skips an asynchronous callback even if
a bpf_pseudo_call was made for it. This is erroneous, as it will miss
accounting for the stack usage of the asynchronous callback, which can
be used to breach the maximum stack depth limit.

Fix this by only skipping asynchronous callbacks when the instruction is
not a pseudo call to the subprog.

Fixes: 7ddc80a476c2 ("bpf: Teach stack depth check about async callbacks.")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 11e54dd8b6dd..930b5555cfd3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5642,8 +5642,9 @@  static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 				verbose(env, "verifier bug. subprog has tail_call and async cb\n");
 				return -EFAULT;
 			}
-			 /* async callbacks don't increase bpf prog stack size */
-			continue;
+			/* async callbacks don't increase bpf prog stack size unless called directly */
+			if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn + i))
+				continue;
 		}
 		i = next_insn;