diff options
| author | Song Liu <song@kernel.org> | 2025-06-25 09:40:24 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2025-06-25 15:12:17 -0700 |
| commit | aced132599b3c8884c050218d4c48eef203678f6 (patch) | |
| tree | 7ee732f1ea148b5b2edb252b46ece689a83df4e2 /kernel | |
| parent | selftests/bpf: Fix usdt multispec failure with arm64/clang20 selftest build (diff) | |
| download | linux-aced132599b3c8884c050218d4c48eef203678f6.tar.gz linux-aced132599b3c8884c050218d4c48eef203678f6.zip | |
bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_NEG
Add range tracking for instruction BPF_NEG. Without this logic, a trivial
program like the following will fail
volatile bool found_value_b;
SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
int BPF_PROG(test_socket_connect)
{
if (!found_value_b)
return -1;
return 0;
}
with verifier log:
"At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=4294967295 should have
been in [-4095, 0]".
This is because range information is lost in BPF_NEG:
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; if (!found_value_b) @ xxxx.c:24
0: (18) r1 = 0xffa00000011e7048 ; R1_w=map_value(...)
2: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0) ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
3: (a4) w0 ^= 1 ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
4: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0_w=scalar(range info lost)
Note that, the log above is manually modified to highlight relevant bits.
Fix this by maintaining proper range information with BPF_NEG, so that
the verifier will know:
4: (84) w0 = -w0 ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=-255,smax=0)
Also updated selftests based on the expected behavior.
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250625164025.3310203-2-song@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/tnum.c | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 |
2 files changed, 21 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c index 9dbc31b25e3d..fa353c5d550f 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c @@ -83,6 +83,11 @@ struct tnum tnum_sub(struct tnum a, struct tnum b) return TNUM(dv & ~mu, mu); } +struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a) +{ + return tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a); +} + struct tnum tnum_and(struct tnum a, struct tnum b) { u64 alpha, beta, v; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index f403524bd215..2ff22ef42348 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -15182,6 +15182,7 @@ static bool is_safe_to_compute_dst_reg_range(struct bpf_insn *insn, switch (BPF_OP(insn->code)) { case BPF_ADD: case BPF_SUB: + case BPF_NEG: case BPF_AND: case BPF_XOR: case BPF_OR: @@ -15250,6 +15251,13 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, scalar_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &src_reg); dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sub(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); break; + case BPF_NEG: + env->fake_reg[0] = *dst_reg; + __mark_reg_known(dst_reg, 0); + scalar32_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &env->fake_reg[0]); + scalar_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &env->fake_reg[0]); + dst_reg->var_off = tnum_neg(env->fake_reg[0].var_off); + break; case BPF_MUL: dst_reg->var_off = tnum_mul(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); scalar32_min_max_mul(dst_reg, &src_reg); @@ -15473,7 +15481,14 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) } /* check dest operand */ - err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP); + if (opcode == BPF_NEG) { + err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP_NO_MARK); + err = err ?: adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(env, insn, + ®s[insn->dst_reg], + regs[insn->dst_reg]); + } else { + err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP); + } if (err) return err; |