From: Hao Sun sunhao.th@gmail.com
commit d3178e8a434b58678d99257c0387810a24042fb6 upstream.
The verifier skips invalid kfunc call in check_kfunc_call(), which would be captured in fixup_kfunc_call() if such insn is not eliminated by dead code elimination. However, this can lead to the following warning in backtrack_insn(), also see [1]:
------------[ cut here ]------------ verifier backtracking bug WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 8646 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2756 backtrack_insn kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2756 __mark_chain_precision kernel/bpf/verifier.c:3065 mark_chain_precision kernel/bpf/verifier.c:3165 adjust_reg_min_max_vals kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10715 check_alu_op kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10928 do_check kernel/bpf/verifier.c:13821 [inline] do_check_common kernel/bpf/verifier.c:16289 [...]
So make backtracking conservative with this by returning ENOTSUPP.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsaXNceR8ZjkLG=dT3P=4A8SBsg0Z5h5PWLryF5=ghK...
Reported-by: syzbot+4da3ff23081bafe74fc2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Hao Sun sunhao.th@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Acked-by: Yonghong Song yhs@fb.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230104014709.9375-1-sunhao.th@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2664,6 +2664,12 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_ver if (opcode == BPF_CALL) { if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) return -ENOTSUPP; + /* kfunc with imm==0 is invalid and fixup_kfunc_call will + * catch this error later. Make backtracking conservative + * with ENOTSUPP. + */ + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL && insn->imm == 0) + return -ENOTSUPP; /* regular helper call sets R0 */ *reg_mask &= ~1; if (*reg_mask & 0x3f) {