bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings
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: fb2a311a ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns") Fixes: b37242c7 ("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
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment