Nicholas Carlini reported a bug in precision backtracking mechanism for BPF_LD | BPF_{IND,ABS} instructions. These instructions are modelled as two branches: - fallthrough; - implicit exit from current subprogram. The implicit exit case was not handled by the backtrack_insn() function. When backtracking such a path backtrack_insn() did not call bt_subprog_enter(), which meant that backtracking continued manipulating precision marks in a caller frame, while looking at instructions in a callee frame. This lead to segmentation faults during verification (see the selftest), or unsound state pruning. Fixes: ee861486e377 ("bpf: Fix ld_{abs,ind} failure path analysis in subprogs") Reported-by: Nicholas Carlini Suggested-by: Nicholas Carlini Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman --- kernel/bpf/backtrack.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c index a2b18a9f1694..eaf7438b9ebf 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c @@ -582,16 +582,29 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx, */ } } else if (class == BPF_LD) { - if (!bt_is_reg_set(bt, dreg)) - return 0; - bt_clear_reg(bt, dreg); /* It's ld_imm64 or ld_abs or ld_ind. * For ld_imm64 no further tracking of precision * into parent is necessary */ - if (mode == BPF_IND || mode == BPF_ABS) - /* to be analyzed */ - return -ENOTSUPP; + if (mode == BPF_IMM) { + bt_clear_reg(bt, dreg); + return 0; + } + /* + * BPF_{IND,ABS} are modelled as two branches: + * - fallthrough; + * - implicit subprogram exit. + * It is necessary to switch current frame if + * implicit subprogram exit branch is backtracked. + */ + if (mode == BPF_IND || mode == BPF_ABS) { + if (bt_is_reg_set(bt, dreg)) + return -ENOTSUPP; + if (subseq_idx != idx + 1) + if (bt_subprog_enter(bt)) + return -EFAULT; + return 0; + } } /* Propagate precision marks to linked registers, to account for * registers marked as precise in this function. -- 2.53.0