| 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: <20210920163937.901309320@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:41:37 +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>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@...driver.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 135/293] selftests/bpf: fix tests due to const spill/fill
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
commit fc559a70d57c6ee5443f7a750858503e94cdc941 upstream.
fix tests that incorrectly assumed that the verifier
cannot track constants through stack.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
[OP: backport to 4.19]
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 | 31 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -3888,7 +3888,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0xffffffff),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 0xffff),
@@ -6560,9 +6561,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND, zero included",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -6577,9 +6578,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND + JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 65),
@@ -6653,9 +6654,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, bounds + offset",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 5),
@@ -6674,9 +6675,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 65, 4),
@@ -6694,9 +6695,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no max check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
@@ -6714,9 +6715,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -6732,9 +6733,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP (signed), no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -6776,6 +6777,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: map, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -6783,7 +6785,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 10),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2,
@@ -6795,7 +6797,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map2 = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map2 = { 4 },
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=48 off=0 size=49",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -6830,6 +6832,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: map adjusted, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -6838,7 +6841,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 11),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 20),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2,
@@ -6850,7 +6853,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map2 = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map2 = { 4 },
.errstr = "R1 min value is outside of the array range",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -6872,8 +6875,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: size > 0 not allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -7100,6 +7103,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
"helper access to variable memory: 8 bytes leak",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -7110,7 +7114,6 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -24),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 63),
Powered by blists - more mailing lists