From: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net
commit 973377ffe8148180b2651825b92ae91988141b05 upstream
In almost all cases from test_verifier that have been changed in here, we've had an unreachable path with a load from a register which has an invalid address on purpose. This was basically to make sure that we never walk this path and to have the verifier complain if it would otherwise. Change it to match on the right error for unprivileged given we now test these paths under speculative execution.
There's one case where we match on exact # of insns_processed. Due to the extra path, this will of course mismatch on unprivileged. Thus, restrict the test->insn_processed check to privileged-only.
In one other case, we result in a 'pointer comparison prohibited' error. This is similarly due to verifying an 'invalid' branch where we end up with a value pointer on one side of the comparison.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Reviewed-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 - tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c | 2 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 14 ++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c | 2 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c | 10 ++++--- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 7 +++-- 8 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_te } }
- if (test->insn_processed) { + if (!unpriv && test->insn_processed) { uint32_t insn_processed; char *proc;
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 0 }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c @@ -508,6 +508,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT }, { @@ -528,6 +530,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT }, { @@ -569,6 +573,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -589,6 +595,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -609,6 +617,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -674,6 +684,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -695,6 +707,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_0, 10, -4), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 7, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, { @@ -150,6 +152,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, { @@ -213,6 +217,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, { @@ -280,6 +286,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -348,6 +356,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -416,6 +426,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -484,6 +496,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -552,6 +566,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -620,6 +636,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -688,6 +706,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, @@ -756,6 +776,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 2, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, - .retval_unpriv = 1, - .result_unpriv = ACCEPT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .retval = 1, .result = ACCEPT, }, @@ -141,7 +141,8 @@ BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, - .result_unpriv = ACCEPT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, { @@ -162,6 +163,7 @@ BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, - .result_unpriv = ACCEPT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c @@ -419,6 +419,8 @@ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_7, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R7 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, .retval = 0, }, --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 }, .result = ACCEPT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars", + .errstr_unpriv = "R2 pointer comparison prohibited", .retval = 0, }, { @@ -159,7 +159,8 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), // fake-dead code; targeted from branch A to - // prevent dead code sanitization + // prevent dead code sanitization, rejected + // via branch B however BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), @@ -167,7 +168,7 @@ .fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 }, .result = ACCEPT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars", + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", .retval = 0, }, {