Fix overlap v2 #10116
Closed
Fix overlap v2 #10116
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation in the BPF verifier. The issue occurs when tnum_overlap() fails to detect that two tnums don't have any overlapping bits. The problematic BPF program: 0: call bpf_get_prandom_u32 1: r6 = r0 2: r6 &= 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0 3: r7 = r0 4: r7 &= 0x07 5: r7 -= 0xFF 6: if r6 == r7 goto <exit> After instruction 5, R7 has the range: R7: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff08] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00; 0xf) R6 and R7 don't overlap since they have no agreeing bits. However, is_branch_taken() fails to recognize this, causing the verifier to refine register bounds and end up with inconsistent bounds: 6: if r6 == r7 goto <exit> R6: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0) R7: u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0) The root cause is that tnum_overlap() doesn't properly handle the case where the masks have no overlapping bits. Fix this by adding an early check for zero mask intersection in tnum_overlap(). Reported-by: [email protected] Fixes: f41345f ("bpf: Use tnums for JEQ/JNE is_branch_taken logic") Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <[email protected]>
This patch adds coverage for the warning detected by syzkaller and fixed in the previous patch. Without the previous patch, this test fails with: verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (true_reg1): range bounds violation u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] s64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] u32=[0xffffff01, 0xffffff00] s32=[0xffffff00, 0xffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0) verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (true_reg2): range bounds violation u64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] s64=[0xffffffffffffff01, 0xffffffffffffff00] u32=[0xffffff01, 0xffffff00] s32=[0xffffff01, 0xffffff00] var_off=(0xffffffffffffff00, 0x0) Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf
bot
force-pushed
the
bpf-next_base
branch
2 times, most recently
from
10ce4bd to
e5828a2
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.