From patchwork Fri Jul 19 11:00:54 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Xu Kuohai X-Patchwork-Id: 13737184 X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (dggsgout11.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C8584A32; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 10:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721386559; cv=none; b=r2RA+2HXpDlkgUCH7sXVEhibczVrWnPovgvXdsTO7PhtDc0nGK2nfurPfb2zSxAAGwRGr81n0o0B4ver6DmMvcxNlySIr8Sj7RG7JA+ng1UqYLbty2EOEn2kALJCFMDcGQpmrrGTwFSvHffTX/JfdEei/A9FKRkLNgJwYTDAqq0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721386559; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zlqLgd6GZc0VkrNvoIBa6GFAHFPcWJh7iCT2Nln+fM0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=Wmjx1LOxvjbbCLKL3JOXyJrLOyM+Bktp5JONN/inu7GsEmATm0+36FYRzOvCaAzLl6g3oCZnjRepyPitYVffFxu/aLO7WPRyLgC0qk1bQqsTeC8qSD31hjLCmBMpg9SAhnYo0f0AymaTDplIlD4Q0XlMcMZ6MFL+GAwIiu83Bfs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.216]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WQRRH2Jhqz4f3l1r; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:55:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.252]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1091A11E8; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:55:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from k01.huawei.com (unknown [10.67.174.197]) by APP3 (Coremail) with SMTP id _Ch0CgD3BVE0RppmM3cvAg--.11767S6; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:55:52 +0800 (CST) From: Xu Kuohai To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Eduard Zingerman , Shung-Hsi Yu , Yonghong Song , KP Singh , Roberto Sassu , Matt Bobrowski , Yafang Shao , Ilya Leoshkevich , "Jose E . Marchesi" , James Morris , Kees Cook , Brendan Jackman , Florent Revest Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/9] bpf: Fix compare error in function retval_range_within Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:00:54 +0800 Message-Id: <20240719110059.797546-5-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: <20240719110059.797546-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> References: <20240719110059.797546-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CM-TRANSID: _Ch0CgD3BVE0RppmM3cvAg--.11767S6 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxXw4kWF4rtw1kZw4rtw4UCFg_yoWrXw4rpr 4rG34qyr1DtF43ua12yan5A34FyF1aqayIkrWkJ3sYyw45trWDXFW2kw4Y9ayFyrW8Gw1I vF4jva15Gw1UZaDanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPqb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26rWj6s0DM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28IrcIa0xkI8VA2jI8067AKxVWUAV Cq3wA2048vs2IY020Ec7CjxVAFwI0_Xr0E3s1l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM28CjxkF64kEwVA0 rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVW5JVW7JwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267 AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E 14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7 xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Y z7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lFIxGxcIEc7CjxVA2Y2ka0xkIwI1lc7CjxVAaw2 AFwI0_GFv_Wryl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAq x4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r4a6r W5MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF 7I0E14v26F4j6r4UJwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI 0_Gr0_Cr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x 07jIPfQUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: 50xn30hkdlqx5xdzvxpfor3voofrz/ X-Patchwork-Delegate: bpf@iogearbox.net From: Xu Kuohai After checking lsm hook return range in verifier, the test case "test_progs -t test_lsm" failed, and the failure log says: libbpf: prog 'test_int_hook': BPF program load failed: Invalid argument libbpf: prog 'test_int_hook': -- BEGIN PROG LOAD LOG -- 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0 ; int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma, @ lsm.c:89 0: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +24) ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-4095,smax=smax32=0) R1=ctx() [...] 24: (b4) w0 = -1 ; R0_w=0xffffffff ; int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma, @ lsm.c:89 25: (95) exit At program exit the register R0 has smin=4294967295 smax=4294967295 should have been in [-4095, 0] It can be seen that instruction "w0 = -1" zero extended -1 to 64-bit register r0, setting both smin and smax values of r0 to 4294967295. This resulted in a false reject when r0 was checked with range [-4095, 0]. Given bpf lsm does not return 64-bit values, this patch fixes it by changing the compare between r0 and return range from 64-bit operation to 32-bit operation for bpf lsm. Fixes: 8fa4ecd49b81 ("bpf: enforce exact retval range on subprog/callback exit") Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index fefa1d5d2faa..78104bd85274 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9964,9 +9964,13 @@ static bool in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(kfunc_btf_id); } -static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const struct bpf_reg_state *reg) +static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, + bool return_32bit) { - return range.minval <= reg->smin_value && reg->smax_value <= range.maxval; + if (return_32bit) + return range.minval <= reg->s32_min_value && reg->s32_max_value <= range.maxval; + else + return range.minval <= reg->smin_value && reg->smax_value <= range.maxval; } static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx) @@ -10003,8 +10007,8 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx) if (err) return err; - /* enforce R0 return value range */ - if (!retval_range_within(callee->callback_ret_range, r0)) { + /* enforce R0 return value range, and bpf_callback_t returns 64bit */ + if (!retval_range_within(callee->callback_ret_range, r0, false)) { verbose_invalid_scalar(env, r0, callee->callback_ret_range, "At callback return", "R0"); return -EINVAL; @@ -15610,6 +15614,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char int err; struct bpf_func_state *frame = env->cur_state->frame[0]; const bool is_subprog = frame->subprogno; + bool return_32bit = false; /* LSM and struct_ops func-ptr's return type could be "void" */ if (!is_subprog || frame->in_exception_callback_fn) { @@ -15721,6 +15726,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char /* no restricted range, any return value is allowed */ if (range.minval == S32_MIN && range.maxval == S32_MAX) return 0; + return_32bit = true; } else if (!env->prog->aux->attach_func_proto->type) { /* Make sure programs that attach to void * hooks don't try to modify return value. @@ -15751,7 +15757,7 @@ static int check_return_code(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, const char if (err) return err; - if (!retval_range_within(range, reg)) { + if (!retval_range_within(range, reg, return_32bit)) { verbose_invalid_scalar(env, reg, range, exit_ctx, reg_name); if (!is_subprog && prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_LSM_CGROUP &&