[bpf-next,1/2] bpf: Teach verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers are non-NULL
Commit Message
In reg_type_not_null(), we currently assume that a pointer may be NULL
if it has the PTR_MAYBE_NULL modifier, or if it doesn't belong to one of
several base type of pointers that are never NULL-able. For example,
PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, etc.
It turns out that in some cases, PTR_TO_BTF_ID can never be NULL as
well, though we currently don't specify it. For example, if you had the
following program:
SEC("tc")
long example_refcnt_fail(void *ctx)
{
struct bpf_cpumask *mask1, *mask2;
mask1 = bpf_cpumask_create();
mask2 = bpf_cpumask_create();
if (!mask1 || !mask2)
goto error_release;
bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(0, (const struct cpumask *)mask1);
bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(0, (const struct cpumask *)mask2);
error_release:
if (mask1)
bpf_cpumask_release(mask1);
if (mask2)
bpf_cpumask_release(mask2);
return ret;
}
The verifier will incorrectly fail to load the program, thinking
(unintuitively) that we have a possibly-unreleased reference if the mask
is NULL, because we (correctly) don't issue a bpf_cpumask_release() on
the NULL path.
The reason the verifier gets confused is due to the fact that we don't
explicitly tell the verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers can
never be NULL. Basically, if we successfully get past the if check
(meaning both pointers go from ptr_or_null_bpf_cpumask to
ptr_bpf_cpumask), the verifier will correctly assume that the references
need to be dropped on any possible branch that leads to program exit.
However, it will _incorrectly_ think that the ptr == NULL branch is
possible, and will erroneously detect it as a branch on which we failed
to drop the reference.
The solution is of course to teach the verifier that trusted
PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers can never be NULL, so that it doesn't incorrectly
think it's possible for the reference to be present on the ptr == NULL
branch.
A follow-on patch will add a selftest that verifies this behavior.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:01:11 -0500 you wrote:
> In reg_type_not_null(), we currently assume that a pointer may be NULL
> if it has the PTR_MAYBE_NULL modifier, or if it doesn't belong to one of
> several base type of pointers that are never NULL-able. For example,
> PTR_TO_CTX, PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, etc.
>
> It turns out that in some cases, PTR_TO_BTF_ID can never be NULL as
> well, though we currently don't specify it. For example, if you had the
> following program:
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf-next,1/2] bpf: Teach verifier that trusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID pointers are non-NULL
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/51302c951c8f
- [bpf-next,2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test for non-NULLable PTR_TO_BTF_IDs
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/f904c67876c4
You are awesome, thank you!
@@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
static void specialize_kfunc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
u32 func_id, u16 offset, unsigned long *addr);
+static bool is_trusted_reg(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg);
static bool bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(const struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux)
{
@@ -439,8 +440,11 @@ static bool type_may_be_null(u32 type)
return type & PTR_MAYBE_NULL;
}
-static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
+static bool reg_not_null(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
+ enum bpf_reg_type type;
+
+ type = reg->type;
if (type_may_be_null(type))
return false;
@@ -450,6 +454,7 @@ static bool reg_type_not_null(enum bpf_reg_type type)
type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE ||
type == PTR_TO_MAP_KEY ||
type == PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON ||
+ (type == PTR_TO_BTF_ID && is_trusted_reg(reg)) ||
type == PTR_TO_MEM;
}
@@ -13157,7 +13162,7 @@ static int is_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, u64 val, u8 opcode,
bool is_jmp32)
{
if (__is_pointer_value(false, reg)) {
- if (!reg_type_not_null(reg->type))
+ if (!reg_not_null(reg))
return -1;
/* If pointer is valid tests against zero will fail so we can