| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20210806081112.932560406@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:16:55 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 23/23] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
commit 973377ffe8148180b2651825b92ae91988141b05 upstream
In almost all cases from test_verifier that have been changed in here, we've
had an unreachable path with a load from a register which has an invalid
address on purpose. This was basically to make sure that we never walk this
path and to have the verifier complain if it would otherwise. Change it to
match on the right error for unprivileged given we now test these paths
under speculative execution.
There's one case where we match on exact # of insns_processed. Due to the
extra path, this will of course mismatch on unprivileged. Thus, restrict the
test->insn_processed check to privileged-only.
In one other case, we result in a 'pointer comparison prohibited' error. This
is similarly due to verifying an 'invalid' branch where we end up with a value
pointer on one side of the comparison.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
[OP: ignore changes to tests that do not exist in 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 -
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 4 +++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c | 2 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c | 10 ++++---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 7 +++--
7 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_te
}
}
- if (test->insn_processed) {
+ if (!unpriv && test->insn_processed) {
uint32_t insn_processed;
char *proc;
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
@@ -523,6 +523,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT
},
{
@@ -543,6 +545,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT
},
{
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_0, 10, -4),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 7,
},
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c
@@ -72,6 +72,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -135,6 +137,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -198,6 +202,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -265,6 +271,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -333,6 +341,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -401,6 +411,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -469,6 +481,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -537,6 +551,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -605,6 +621,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -673,6 +691,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -741,6 +761,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c
@@ -82,8 +82,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .retval_unpriv = 1,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.retval = 1,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -141,7 +141,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -162,6 +163,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -418,6 +418,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_7, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R7 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 0,
},
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 pointer comparison prohibited",
.retval = 0,
},
{
@@ -159,7 +159,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
// fake-dead code; targeted from branch A to
- // prevent dead code sanitization
+ // prevent dead code sanitization, rejected
+ // via branch B however
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
@@ -167,7 +168,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.retval = 0,
},
{
Powered by blists - more mailing lists