Commit f01e0693 authored by Paul Chaignon's avatar Paul Chaignon Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
Browse files

bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET



[ Upstream commit 6279846b ]

Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on
the following BPF program.

  0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie
  1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit>
  2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit>

The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps.

That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but
with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2
if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to
figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then
refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end
up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path:

  1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit>
    r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff)
  2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit>
    r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0)
    r0 after reg_bounds_sync:  u64=[0x1, 0] var_off=(0, 0)

Improving the range refinement for JSET to cover all cases is tricky. We
also don't expect many users to rely on JSET given LLVM doesn't generate
those instructions. So instead of improving the range refinement for
JSETs, Eduard suggested we forget the ranges whenever we're narrowing
tnums after a JSET. This patch implements that approach.

Reported-by: default avatar <syzbot+c711ce17dd78e5d4fdcf@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Suggested-by: default avatarEduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarYonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: default avatarEduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9d4fd6432a095d281f815770608fdcd16028ce0b.1752171365.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
parent 1b9f54ac
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please to comment