linux/debian/patches/bugfix/all/bpf-don-t-prune-branches-wh...

45 lines
1.8 KiB
Diff

From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:59 -0800
Subject: [7/9] bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a
pointer
Origin: https://git.kernel.org/linus/179d1c5602997fef5a940c6ddcf31212cbfebd14
This could be made safe by passing through a reference to env and checking
for env->allow_ptr_leaks, but it would only work one way and is probably
not worth the hassle - not doing it will not directly lead to program
rejection.
Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 15 +++++++--------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3366,15 +3366,14 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state
return range_within(rold, rcur) &&
tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off);
} else {
- /* if we knew anything about the old value, we're not
- * equal, because we can't know anything about the
- * scalar value of the pointer in the new value.
+ /* We're trying to use a pointer in place of a scalar.
+ * Even if the scalar was unbounded, this could lead to
+ * pointer leaks because scalars are allowed to leak
+ * while pointers are not. We could make this safe in
+ * special cases if root is calling us, but it's
+ * probably not worth the hassle.
*/
- return rold->umin_value == 0 &&
- rold->umax_value == U64_MAX &&
- rold->smin_value == S64_MIN &&
- rold->smax_value == S64_MAX &&
- tnum_is_unknown(rold->var_off);
+ return false;
}
case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
/* If the new min/max/var_off satisfy the old ones and