From: Maxim Mikityanskiy maximmi@nvidia.com
commit 2fa7d94afc1afbb4d702760c058dc2d7ed30f226 upstream.
The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error, arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):
// 1. Passes the verifier: if (data + 8 > data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
// 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass): if (data + 7 >= data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code starts failing in the verifier:
// 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1. if (data + 8 >= data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however, they should be accepted.
This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the one that should actually fail.
Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns") Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests") Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy maximmi@nvidia.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@nvidia.com [OP: only cherry-pick selftest changes applicable to 4.14] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 0846345fe1e5..f7757f7f6d2b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -7438,10 +7438,10 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, 1), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1), - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, @@ -7494,10 +7494,10 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1), - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, @@ -7603,9 +7603,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1), - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, @@ -7770,9 +7770,9 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct xdp_md, data_end)), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 8), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JLE, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1, 1), - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -6), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), },