lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: fix nullness propagation for reg to reg comparisons
From


On 12/11/22 8:09 PM, Hao Sun wrote:
> After befae75856ab, the verifier would propagate null information after
> JEQ/JNE, e.g., if two pointers, one is maybe_null and the other is not,
> the former would be marked as non-null in eq path. However, as comment
> "PTR_TO_BTF_ID points to a kernel struct that does not need to be null
> checked by the BPF program ... The verifier must keep this in mind and
> can make no assumptions about null or non-null when doing branch ...".
> If one pointer is maybe_null and the other is PTR_TO_BTF_ID, the former
> is incorrectly marked non-null. The following BPF prog can trigger a
> null-ptr-deref, also see this report for more details[1]:
>
> 0: (18) r1 = map_fd ; R1_w=map_ptr(ks=4, vs=4)
> 2: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) ; R6_w=bpf_map->inner_map_data
> ; R6 is PTR_TO_BTF_ID
> ; equals to null at runtime
> 3: (bf) r2 = r10
> 4: (07) r2 += -4
> 5: (62) *(u32 *)(r2 +0) = 0
> 6: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 ; R0_w=map_value_or_null
> 7: (1d) if r6 == r0 goto pc+1
> 8: (95) exit
> ; from 7 to 9: R0=map_value R6=ptr_bpf_map
> 9: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r0 +0) ; null-ptr-deref
> 10: (95) exit
>
> So, make the verifier propagate nullness information for reg to reg
> comparisons only if neither reg is PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsaFJwjC5oiw-1KXvcazywodwXo4zGYsRHwbr2gSG9WcSw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
>
> Fixes: befae75856ab4 ("bpf: propagate nullness information for reg to reg comparisons")
> Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>

Ack with a small nit below.

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>

> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index a5255a0dcbb6..aa651e4517e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -11825,7 +11825,9 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> */

Could you add explanation why PTR_TO_BTF_ID reg type should be excluded
in the above comments?

> if (!is_jmp32 && BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
> __is_pointer_value(false, src_reg) && __is_pointer_value(false, dst_reg) &&
> - type_may_be_null(src_reg->type) != type_may_be_null(dst_reg->type)) {
> + type_may_be_null(src_reg->type) != type_may_be_null(dst_reg->type) &&
> + base_type(src_reg->type) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID &&
> + base_type(dst_reg->type) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID) {
> eq_branch_regs = NULL;
> switch (opcode) {
> case BPF_JEQ:

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-12 22:00    [W:0.045 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site