Merge branch 'bpf-fix-verification-of-indirect-var-off-stack-access'

Andrei Matei says:

====================
bpf: fix verification of indirect var-off stack access

V4 to V5:
  - split the test into a separate patch

V3 to V4:
  - include a test per Eduard's request
  - target bpf-next per Alexei's request (patches didn't change)

V2 to V3:
  - simplify checks for max_off (don't call
    check_stack_slot_within_bounds for it)
  - append a commit to protect against overflow in the addition of the
    register and the offset

V1 to V2:
  - fix max_off calculation for access size = 0
====================

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

Author: anakryiko

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -6577,7 +6577,7 @@ static int check_ptr_to_map_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
  * The minimum valid offset is -MAX_BPF_STACK for writes, and
  * -state->allocated_stack for reads.
  */
-static int check_stack_slot_within_bounds(int off,
+static int check_stack_slot_within_bounds(s64 off,
 					  struct bpf_func_state *state,
 					  enum bpf_access_type t)
 {
@@ -6606,7 +6606,7 @@ static int check_stack_access_within_bounds(
 	struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env);
 	struct bpf_reg_state *reg = regs + regno;
 	struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
-	int min_off, max_off;
+	s64 min_off, max_off;
 	int err;
 	char *err_extra;
 
@@ -6619,11 +6619,8 @@ static int check_stack_access_within_bounds(
 		err_extra = " write to";
 
 	if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
-		min_off = reg->var_off.value + off;
-		if (access_size > 0)
-			max_off = min_off + access_size - 1;
-		else
-			max_off = min_off;
+		min_off = (s64)reg->var_off.value + off;
+		max_off = min_off + access_size;
 	} else {
 		if (reg->smax_value >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF ||
 		    reg->smin_value <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
@@ -6632,15 +6629,12 @@ static int check_stack_access_within_bounds(
 			return -EACCES;
 		}
 		min_off = reg->smin_value + off;
-		if (access_size > 0)
-			max_off = reg->smax_value + off + access_size - 1;
-		else
-			max_off = min_off;
+		max_off = reg->smax_value + off + access_size;
 	}
 
 	err = check_stack_slot_within_bounds(min_off, state, type);
-	if (!err)
-		err = check_stack_slot_within_bounds(max_off, state, type);
+	if (!err && max_off > 0)
+		err = -EINVAL; /* out of stack access into non-negative offsets */
 
 	if (err) {
 		if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {

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

@@ -224,6 +224,35 @@ __naked void access_max_out_of_bound(void)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+/* Similar to the test above, but this time check the special case of a
+ * zero-sized stack access. We used to have a bug causing crashes for zero-sized
+ * out-of-bounds accesses.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__description("indirect variable-offset stack access, zero-sized, max out of bound")
+__failure __msg("invalid variable-offset indirect access to stack R1")
+__naked void zero_sized_access_max_out_of_bound(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("                      \
+	r0 = 0;                              \
+	/* Fill some stack */                \
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r0;              \
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r0;               \
+	/* Get an unknown value */           \
+	r1 = *(u32*)(r1 + 0);                \
+	r1 &= 63;                            \
+	r1 += -16;                           \
+	/* r1 is now anywhere in [-16,48) */ \
+	r1 += r10;                           \
+	r2 = 0;                              \
+	r3 = 0;                              \
+	call %[bpf_probe_read_kernel];       \
+	exit;                                \
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_probe_read_kernel)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 SEC("lwt_in")
 __description("indirect variable-offset stack access, min out of bound")
 __failure __msg("invalid variable-offset indirect access to stack R2")