netdev - [RFC PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Check KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl for the "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB

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: <20250418224652.105998-2-martin.lau@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:46:39 -0700
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' <ast@...nel.org>,
	'Andrii Nakryiko ' <andrii@...nel.org>,
	'Daniel Borkmann ' <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com,
	'Amery Hung ' <ameryhung@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Check KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl for the "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE"

From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>

In a later patch, two new kfuncs will take the bpf_rb_node pointer arg.

struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_left(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
				    struct bpf_rb_node *node);
struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_right(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
				     struct bpf_rb_node *node);

In the check_kfunc_call, there is a "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE"
to check if the reg->type should be an allocated pointer or should be
a non_owning_ref.

The later patch will need to ensure that the bpf_rb_node pointer passing
to the new bpf_rbtree_{left,right} must be a non_owning_ref. This
should be the same requirement as the existing bpf_rbtree_remove.

This patch swaps the current "if else" statement. Instead of checking
the bpf_rbtree_remove, it checks the bpf_rbtree_add. Then the new
bpf_rbtree_{left,right} will fall into the "else" case to make
the later patch simpler. bpf_rbtree_add should be the only
one that needs an allocated pointer.

This should be a no-op change considering there are only two kfunc(s)
taking bpf_rb_node pointer arg, rbtree_add and rbtree_remove.

Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 54c6953a8b84..2e1ce7debc16 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -13200,22 +13200,22 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
 				return ret;
 			break;
 		case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE:
-			if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove]) {
-				if (!type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) || reg->ref_obj_id) {
-					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove node input must be non-owning ref\n");
+			if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
+				if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
+					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected pointer to allocated object\n", i);
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
-				if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) {
-					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove not allowed in rbtree cb\n");
+				if (!reg->ref_obj_id) {
+					verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 			} else {
-				if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
-					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected pointer to allocated object\n", i);
+				if (!type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) || reg->ref_obj_id) {
+					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove node input must be non-owning ref\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
-				if (!reg->ref_obj_id) {
-					verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
+				if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) {
+					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove not allowed in rbtree cb\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 			}
-- 
2.47.1