From: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com>

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 <y...@fb.com>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
---
technically it's 'net' material, but it's too late for 'net',
hence 'net-next' tag.
No 'Fixes' tag, since it's only seen with newer llvm.
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       | 11 +++++++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 6f8b6ed690be..c2ff608c1984 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1924,6 +1924,17 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, 
struct bpf_insn *insn)
                        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))) {
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c 
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 95a8d5f3ab80..0ea89456d478 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -1814,16 +1814,22 @@ 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,
        },
        {
-- 
2.9.3

Reply via email to