Commit 47b3708c authored by Alexei Starovoitov's avatar Alexei Starovoitov

Merge branch 'bpf: Fix out-of-bound issue when jit-ing bpf_pseudo_func'

Martin KaFai says:

====================

This set fixes an out-of-bound access issue when jit-ing the
bpf_pseudo_func insn (i.e. ld_imm64 with src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC)
====================
Reported-by: default avatarYonatan Komornik <yoniko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
parents 70bf363d d99341b3
......@@ -484,6 +484,12 @@ bpf_ctx_record_field_size(struct bpf_insn_access_aux *aux, u32 size)
aux->ctx_field_size = size;
}
static inline bool bpf_pseudo_func(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
{
return insn->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW) &&
insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC;
}
struct bpf_prog_ops {
int (*test_run)(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
union bpf_attr __user *uattr);
......
......@@ -390,6 +390,13 @@ static int bpf_adj_branches(struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 pos, s32 end_old,
i = end_new;
insn = prog->insnsi + end_old;
}
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
ret = bpf_adj_delta_to_imm(insn, pos, end_old,
end_new, i, probe_pass);
if (ret)
return ret;
continue;
}
code = insn->code;
if ((BPF_CLASS(code) != BPF_JMP &&
BPF_CLASS(code) != BPF_JMP32) ||
......
......@@ -240,12 +240,6 @@ static bool bpf_pseudo_kfunc_call(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL;
}
static bool bpf_pseudo_func(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
{
return insn->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW) &&
insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC;
}
struct bpf_call_arg_meta {
struct bpf_map *map_ptr;
bool raw_mode;
......@@ -1960,16 +1954,10 @@ static int add_subprog_and_kfunc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return -EPERM;
}
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn) || bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
ret = add_subprog(env, i + insn->imm + 1);
if (ret >= 0)
/* remember subprog */
insn[1].imm = ret;
} else if (bpf_pseudo_call(insn)) {
ret = add_subprog(env, i + insn->imm + 1);
} else {
else
ret = add_kfunc_call(env, insn->imm, insn->off);
}
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
......@@ -9387,7 +9375,8 @@ static int check_ld_imm(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC) {
struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = env->prog->aux;
u32 subprogno = insn[1].imm;
u32 subprogno = find_subprog(env,
env->insn_idx + insn->imm + 1);
if (!aux->func_info) {
verbose(env, "missing btf func_info\n");
......@@ -12557,14 +12546,9 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return 0;
for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm = insn->imm;
/* subprog is encoded in insn[1].imm */
if (!bpf_pseudo_func(insn) && !bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
}
if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
continue;
/* Upon error here we cannot fall back to interpreter but
* need a hard reject of the program. Thus -EFAULT is
* propagated in any case.
......@@ -12585,6 +12569,12 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm = insn->imm;
/* point imm to __bpf_call_base+1 from JITs point of view */
insn->imm = 1;
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn))
/* jit (e.g. x86_64) may emit fewer instructions
* if it learns a u32 imm is the same as a u64 imm.
* Force a non zero here.
*/
insn[1].imm = 1;
}
err = bpf_prog_alloc_jited_linfo(prog);
......@@ -12669,7 +12659,7 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
insn = func[i]->insnsi;
for (j = 0; j < func[i]->len; j++, insn++) {
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
subprog = insn[1].imm;
subprog = insn->off;
insn[0].imm = (u32)(long)func[subprog]->bpf_func;
insn[1].imm = ((u64)(long)func[subprog]->bpf_func) >> 32;
continue;
......@@ -12720,7 +12710,8 @@ static int jit_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
for (i = 0, insn = prog->insnsi; i < prog->len; i++, insn++) {
if (bpf_pseudo_func(insn)) {
insn[0].imm = env->insn_aux_data[i].call_imm;
insn[1].imm = find_subprog(env, i + insn[0].imm + 1);
insn[1].imm = insn->off;
insn->off = 0;
continue;
}
if (!bpf_pseudo_call(insn))
......
......@@ -23,6 +23,16 @@ struct callback_ctx {
int output;
};
const volatile int bypass_unused = 1;
static __u64
unused_subprog(struct bpf_map *map, __u32 *key, __u64 *val,
struct callback_ctx *data)
{
data->output = 0;
return 1;
}
static __u64
check_array_elem(struct bpf_map *map, __u32 *key, __u64 *val,
struct callback_ctx *data)
......@@ -54,6 +64,8 @@ int test_pkt_access(struct __sk_buff *skb)
data.output = 0;
bpf_for_each_map_elem(&arraymap, check_array_elem, &data, 0);
if (!bypass_unused)
bpf_for_each_map_elem(&arraymap, unused_subprog, &data, 0);
arraymap_output = data.output;
bpf_for_each_map_elem(&percpu_map, check_percpu_elem, (void *)0, 0);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment