netdev - RE: [PATCHv17 bpf-next 5/6] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for bpf arg ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6011e82feb2_a0fd920881@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:24:47 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv17 bpf-next 5/6] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for bpf
 arg ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL

Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Use helper bpf_redirect_map() and bpf_redirect_map_multi() to test bpf
> arg ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR and ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL. Make sure the
> map arg could be verified correctly when it is NULL or valid map
> pointer.
> 
> Add devmap and devmap_hash in struct bpf_test due to bpf_redirect_{map,
> map_multi} limit.
> 
> Test result:
>  ]# ./test_verifier 713 716
>  #713/p ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR: null pointer OK
>  #714/p ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR: valid map pointer OK
>  #715/p ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL: null pointer for ex_map OK
>  #716/p ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL: valid map pointer for ex_map OK
>  Summary: 4 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> 
> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c   | 22 +++++-
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c  | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

[...]

> +{
> +	"ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL: null pointer for ex_map",
> +	.insns = {
> +		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg1 (in_map) */
> +		BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg2 (ex_map) */
> +		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg3 (flags) */
> +		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +		BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_redirect_map_multi),
> +		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +	},
> +	.fixup_map_devmap = { 1 },
> +	.result = ACCEPT,
> +	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
> +	.retval = 4,

Do we need one more case where this is map_or_null? In above
ex_map will be scalar tnum_const=0 and be exactly a null. This
will push verifier here,

  meta->map_ptr = register_is_null(reg) ? NULL : reg->map_ptr;

In the below case it is known to be not null.

Is it also interesting to have a case where register_is_null(reg)
check fails and reg->map_ptr is set, but may be null.

> +},
> +{
> +	"ARG_CONST_MAP_PTR_OR_NULL: valid map pointer for ex_map",
> +	.insns = {
> +		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg1 (in_map) */
> +		BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg2 (ex_map) */
> +		BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_2, 1),
> +		/* bpf_redirect_map_multi arg3 (flags) */
> +		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 0),
> +		BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_redirect_map_multi),
> +		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +	},
> +	.fixup_map_devmap = { 1 },
> +	.fixup_map_devmap_hash = { 3 },
> +	.result = ACCEPT,
> +	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
> +	.retval = 4,
> +},
> -- 
> 2.26.2
>