bpf: fix method of PTR_TO_PACKET reg id generation
Using per-register incrementing ID can lead to find_good_pkt_pointers() confusing registers which have completely different values. Consider example: 0: (bf) r6 = r1 1: (61) r8 = *(u32 *)(r6 +76) 2: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r6 +80) 3: (bf) r7 = r8 4: (07) r8 += 32 5: (2d) if r8 > r0 goto pc+9 R0=pkt_end R1=ctx R6=ctx R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=32) R8=pkt(id=0,off=32,r=32) R10=fp 6: (bf) r8 = r7 7: (bf) r9 = r7 8: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r7 +0) 9: (0f) r8 += r1 10: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r7 +1) 11: (0f) r9 += r1 12: (07) r8 += 32 13: (2d) if r8 > r0 goto pc+1 R0=pkt_end R1=inv56 R6=ctx R7=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=32) R8=pkt(id=1,off=32,r=32) R9=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=32) R10=fp 14: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r9 +16) 15: (b7) r7 = 0 16: (bf) r0 = r7 17: (95) exit We need to get a UNKNOWN_VALUE with imm to force id generation so lines 0-5 make r7 a valid packet pointer. We then read two different bytes from the packet and add them to copies of the constructed packet pointer. r8 (line 9) and r9 (line 11) will get the same id of 1, independently. When either of them is validated (line 13) - find_good_pkt_pointers() will also mark the other as safe. This leads to access on line 14 being mistakenly considered safe. Fixes: 969bf05e ("bpf: direct packet access") Signed-off-by: NJakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> Acked-by: NAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Acked-by: NDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录