Merge branch 'bpf-fix-verifier_bug_if-to-account-for-bpf_call'

Luis Gerhorst says:

====================
bpf: Fix verifier_bug_if to account for BPF_CALL

This fixes the verifier_bug_if() that runs on nospec_result to not trigger
for BPF_CALL (bug reported by Hu, Mei, and Mu). See patch 1 for a full
description and patch 2 for a test (based on the PoC from the report).

While working on this I noticed two other problems:

- nospec_result is currently ignored for BPF_CALL during patching, but it
  may be required if we assume the CPU may speculate into/out of functions.

- Both the instruction patching for nospec and nospec_result erases the
  instruction aux information even thought it might be better to keep that.
  For nospec_result it may be fine as it is only applied to store
  instructions currently (except for when we decide to change the thing
  from above), but nospec may be set for arbitrary instructions and if
  these require rewrites they break.

I assume these issues are better fixed separately, thus I decided to
exclude them from this series.
====================

Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260127115912.3026761-1-luis.gerhorst@fau.de
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

Author: Alexei Starovoitov

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -21065,17 +21065,19 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 			 * may skip a nospec patched-in after the jump. This can
 			 * currently never happen because nospec_result is only
 			 * used for the write-ops
-			 * `*(size*)(dst_reg+off)=src_reg|imm32` which must
-			 * never skip the following insn. Still, add a warning
-			 * to document this in case nospec_result is used
-			 * elsewhere in the future.
+			 * `*(size*)(dst_reg+off)=src_reg|imm32` and helper
+			 * calls. These must never skip the following insn
+			 * (i.e., bpf_insn_successors()'s opcode_info.can_jump
+			 * is false). Still, add a warning to document this in
+			 * case nospec_result is used elsewhere in the future.
 			 *
 			 * All non-branch instructions have a single
 			 * fall-through edge. For these, nospec_result should
 			 * already work.
 			 */
-			if (verifier_bug_if(BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP ||
-					    BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP32, env,
+			if (verifier_bug_if((BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP ||
+					     BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP32) &&
+					    BPF_OP(insn->code) != BPF_CALL, env,
 					    "speculation barrier after jump instruction may not have the desired effect"))
 				return -EFAULT;
 process_bpf_exit:

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

@@ -950,4 +950,26 @@ l3_%=:	r0 = 0;						\
 "	::: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("socket")
+__description("unpriv: nospec after dead stack write in helper")
+__success __success_unpriv
+__retval(0)
+/* Dead code sanitizer rewrites the call to `goto -1`. */
+__naked void unpriv_dead_helper_stack_write_nospec_result(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r0 = 0;						\
+	if r0 != 1 goto l0_%=;				\
+	r2 = 0;						\
+	r3 = r10;					\
+	r3 += -16;					\
+	r4 = 4;						\
+	r5 = 0;						\
+	call %[bpf_skb_load_bytes_relative];		\
+l0_%=:	exit;						\
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_skb_load_bytes_relative)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";