Merge branch 'bpf-fix-an-issue-in-verifing-allow_ptr_leaks'

Yafang Shao says:

====================
bpf: Fix an issue in verifing allow_ptr_leaks

Patch #1: An issue found in our local 6.1 kernel.
          This issue also exists in bpf-next.
Patch #2: Selftess for #1

v1->v2:
  - Add acked-by from Eduard
  - Fix build error reported by Alexei
====================

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>

Author: Alexei Starovoitov

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -14041,6 +14041,12 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	/* check src2 operand */
+	err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) {
 		if (insn->imm != 0) {
 			verbose(env, "BPF_JMP/JMP32 uses reserved fields\n");
@@ -14052,25 +14058,20 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 
-		if (is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
+		src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
+		if (!(reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(dst_reg) && reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(src_reg)) &&
+		    is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d pointer comparison prohibited\n",
 				insn->src_reg);
 			return -EACCES;
 		}
-		src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
 	} else {
 		if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_0) {
 			verbose(env, "BPF_JMP/JMP32 uses reserved fields\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
 
-	/* check src2 operand */
-	err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, SRC_OP);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-
-	dst_reg = &regs[insn->dst_reg];
 	is_jmp32 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP32;
 
 	if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) {

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_bpf.c

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 #include <test_progs.h>
 #include <linux/pkt_cls.h>
 
+#include "cap_helpers.h"
 #include "test_tc_bpf.skel.h"
 
 #define LO_IFINDEX 1
@@ -327,7 +328,7 @@ static int test_tc_bpf_api(struct bpf_tc_hook *hook, int fd)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-void test_tc_bpf(void)
+void tc_bpf_root(void)
 {
 	DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_hook, hook, .ifindex = LO_IFINDEX,
 			    .attach_point = BPF_TC_INGRESS);
@@ -393,3 +394,36 @@ void test_tc_bpf(void)
 	}
 	test_tc_bpf__destroy(skel);
 }
+
+void tc_bpf_non_root(void)
+{
+	struct test_tc_bpf *skel = NULL;
+	__u64 caps = 0;
+	int ret;
+
+	/* In case CAP_BPF and CAP_PERFMON is not set */
+	ret = cap_enable_effective(1ULL << CAP_BPF | 1ULL << CAP_NET_ADMIN, &caps);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "set_cap_bpf_cap_net_admin"))
+		return;
+	ret = cap_disable_effective(1ULL << CAP_SYS_ADMIN | 1ULL << CAP_PERFMON, NULL);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "disable_cap_sys_admin"))
+		goto restore_cap;
+
+	skel = test_tc_bpf__open_and_load();
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_tc_bpf__open_and_load"))
+		goto restore_cap;
+
+	test_tc_bpf__destroy(skel);
+
+restore_cap:
+	if (caps)
+		cap_enable_effective(caps, NULL);
+}
+
+void test_tc_bpf(void)
+{
+	if (test__start_subtest("tc_bpf_root"))
+		tc_bpf_root();
+	if (test__start_subtest("tc_bpf_non_root"))
+		tc_bpf_non_root();
+}

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_bpf.c

@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 #include <linux/bpf.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <linux/if_ether.h>
+#include <linux/ip.h>
 
 /* Dummy prog to test TC-BPF API */
 
@@ -10,3 +12,14 @@ int cls(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	return 0;
 }
+
+/* Prog to verify tc-bpf without cap_sys_admin and cap_perfmon */
+SEC("tcx/ingress")
+int pkt_ptr(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	struct iphdr *iph = (void *)(long)skb->data + sizeof(struct ethhdr);
+
+	if ((long)(iph + 1) > (long)skb->data_end)
+		return 1;
+	return 0;
+}