bpf: Sanity check max value for var_off stack access
As discussed in [1] max value of variable offset has to be checked for overflow on stack access otherwise verifier would accept code like this: 0: (b7) r2 = 6 1: (b7) r3 = 28 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = 0 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r1 +168) 5: (c5) if r4 s< 0x0 goto pc+4 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv6 R3=inv28 R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=mmmmmmmm fp-16=mmmmmmmm 6: (17) r4 -= 16 7: (0f) r4 += r10 8: (b7) r5 = 8 9: (85) call bpf_getsockopt#57 10: (b7) r0 = 0 11: (95) exit , where R4 obviosly has unbounded max value. Fix it by checking that reg->smax_value is inside (-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF; BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) range. reg->smax_value is used instead of reg->umax_value because stack pointers are calculated using negative offset from fp. This is opposite to e.g. map access where offset must be non-negative and where umax_value is used. Also dedicated verbose logs are added for both min and max bound check failures to have diagnostics consistent with variable offset handling in check_map_access(). [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=155433357510597&w=2 Fixes: 2011fccf ("bpf: Support variable offset stack access from helpers") Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment