aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGravatar David Vernet <void@manifault.com> 2023-06-02 10:01:11 -0500
committerGravatar Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> 2023-06-05 14:36:57 -0700
commit51302c951c8fd5c298565c7127c855bf1d4550b6 (patch)
tree03ad3788588215c273a60064ac363661f523b36e /kernel
parentbpf: Replace open code with for allocated object check (diff)
downloadlinux-51302c951c8fd5c298565c7127c855bf1d4550b6.tar.gz
linux-51302c951c8fd5c298565c7127c855bf1d4550b6.tar.bz2
linux-51302c951c8fd5c298565c7127c855bf1d4550b6.zip
bpf: Teach verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers are non-NULL
In reg_type_not_null(), we currently assume that a pointer may be NULL if it has the PTR_MAYBE_NULL modifier, or if it doesn't belong to one of several base type of pointers that are never NULL-able. For example, PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, etc. It turns out that in some cases, PTR_TO_BTF_ID can never be NULL as well, though we currently don't specify it. For example, if you had the following program: SEC("tc") long example_refcnt_fail(void *ctx) { struct bpf_cpumask *mask1, *mask2; mask1 = bpf_cpumask_create(); mask2 = bpf_cpumask_create(); if (!mask1 || !mask2) goto error_release; bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(0, (const struct cpumask *)mask1); bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(0, (const struct cpumask *)mask2); error_release: if (mask1) bpf_cpumask_release(mask1); if (mask2) bpf_cpumask_release(mask2); return ret; } The verifier will incorrectly fail to load the program, thinking (unintuitively) that we have a possibly-unreleased reference if the mask is NULL, because we (correctly) don't issue a bpf_cpumask_release() on the NULL path. The reason the verifier gets confused is due to the fact that we don't explicitly tell the verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers can never be NULL. Basically, if we successfully get past the if check (meaning both pointers go from ptr_or_null_bpf_cpumask to ptr_bpf_cpumask), the verifier will correctly assume that the references need to be dropped on any possible branch that leads to program exit. However, it will _incorrectly_ think that the ptr == NULL branch is possible, and will erroneously detect it as a branch on which we failed to drop the reference. The solution is of course to teach the verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers can never be NULL, so that it doesn't incorrectly think it's possible for the reference to be present on the ptr == NULL branch. A follow-on patch will add a selftest that verifies this behavior. Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230602150112.1494194-1-void@manifault.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
-rw-r--r--kernel/bpf/verifier.c9
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 7acbd103f9ac..1e38584d497c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
static void specialize_kfunc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
u32 func_id, u16 offset, unsigned long *addr);
+static bool is_trusted_reg(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
static bool bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(const struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux)
{
@@ -442,8 +443,11 @@ static bool type_may_be_null(u32 type)
return type & PTR_MAYBE_NULL;
}
-static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
+static bool reg_not_null(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
+ enum bpf_reg_type type;
+
+ type = reg->type;
if (type_may_be_null(type))
return false;
@@ -453,6 +457,7 @@ static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE ||
type == PTR_TO_MAP_KEY ||
type == PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON ||
+ (type == PTR_TO_BTF_ID && is_trusted_reg(reg)) ||
type == PTR_TO_MEM;
}
@@ -13170,7 +13175,7 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode,
bool is_jmp32)
{
if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg)) {
- if (!reg_type_not_null(reg->type))
+ if (!reg_not_null(reg))
return -1;
/* If pointer is valid tests against zero will fail so we can