commit 049c4e1371 upstream.
Fix a bug in the verifier's scalar32_min_max_*() functions which leads to
incorrect tracking of 32 bit bounds for the simulation of and/or/xor bitops.
When both the src & dst subreg is a known constant, then the assumption is
that scalar_min_max_*() will take care to update bounds correctly. However,
this is not the case, for example, consider a register R2 which has a tnum
of 0xffffffff00000000, meaning, lower 32 bits are known constant and in this
case of value 0x00000001. R2 is then and'ed with a register R3 which is a
64 bit known constant, here, 0x100000002.
What can be seen in line '10:' is that 32 bit bounds reach an invalid state
where {u,s}32_min_value > {u,s}32_max_value. The reason is scalar32_min_max_*()
delegates 32 bit bounds updates to scalar_min_max_*(), however, that really
only takes place when both the 64 bit src & dst register is a known constant.
Given scalar32_min_max_*() is intended to be designed as closely as possible
to scalar_min_max_*(), update the 32 bit bounds in this situation through
__mark_reg32_known() which will set all {u,s}32_{min,max}_value to the correct
constant, which is 0x00000000 after the fix (given 0x00000001 & 0x00000002 in
32 bit space). This is possible given var32_off already holds the final value
as dst_reg->var_off is updated before calling scalar32_min_max_*().
Before fix, invalid tracking of R2:
[...]
9: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775807 (0x8000000000000001),smax_value=9223372032559808513 (0x7fffffff00000001),umin_value=1,umax_value=0xffffffff00000001,var_off=(0x1; 0xffffffff00000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=1,u32_min_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R3_w=inv4294967298 R10=fp0
9: (5f) r2 &= r3
10: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967296 (0x100000000),umin_value=0,umax_value=0x100000000,var_off=(0x0; 0x100000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=0,u32_min_value=1,u32_max_value=0) R3_w=inv4294967298 R10=fp0
[...]
After fix, correct tracking of R2:
[...]
9: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775807 (0x8000000000000001),smax_value=9223372032559808513 (0x7fffffff00000001),umin_value=1,umax_value=0xffffffff00000001,var_off=(0x1; 0xffffffff00000000),s32_min_value=1,s32_max_value=1,u32_min_value=1,u32_max_value=1) R3_w=inv4294967298 R10=fp0
9: (5f) r2 &= r3
10: R0_w=inv1337 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967296 (0x100000000),umin_value=0,umax_value=0x100000000,var_off=(0x0; 0x100000000),s32_min_value=0,s32_max_value=0,u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=0) R3_w=inv4294967298 R10=fp0
[...]
Fixes: 3f50f132d8 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
Fixes: 2921c90d47 ("bpf: Fix a verifier failure with xor")
Reported-by: Manfred Paul (@_manfp)
Reported-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
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: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
282bfc8848