summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorEduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>2026-08-31 18:36:10 -0700
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2026-09-02 11:13:21 -0700
commit7ac9662189069914a088ec61ad85dc46b5cb1563 (patch)
treec704c586a0296ed1b8a5f8aa4e24d3672f5a0c6d /tools
parente3e4f66cc4b72333d0886ae2673c360248987889 (diff)
downloadlinux-next-7ac9662189069914a088ec61ad85dc46b5cb1563.tar.gz
linux-next-7ac9662189069914a088ec61ad85dc46b5cb1563.zip
selftests/bpf: test case for unsafe pruning of bpf_loop checkpoints
The following BPF program was erroneously accepted by the verifier: static int cb(int i, __u64 *ctx) { /* unsafe on a second iteration */ small_arr[*ctx] = i; *ctx = 100500; return 0; } int main(void *ctx) { int nr_loops = 1; u64 ctx = 0; if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32() == 42)) nr_loops = 2; bpf_loop(nr_loops, cb, &ctx, 0); return 0; } The branch with nr_loops == 1 was explored first and injected a checkpoint at the entry to 'cb', such that nr_loops in the main's frame was not marked as precise. This checkpoint pruned the state with nr_loops == 2 and the program was accepted. This test case corresponds to the program above. Entry point is written in assembly to ensure branch processing order. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260831-bug-015-backtrack-cb-args-precise-v1-2-68a8e2a821e0@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools')
-rw-r--r--tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c39
1 files changed, 39 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
index 62d7df9e80be..c6699159dacd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
@@ -2149,4 +2149,43 @@ __naked int stack_misc_vs_scalar_in_a_loop(void)
);
}
+__used
+static int loop_cb5(int i, __u64 *ctx)
+{
+ /* unsafe on a second iteration */
+ small_arr[*ctx] = i;
+ *ctx = 100500;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("raw_tp")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__failure __msg("memory access is {{.*}} and is outside of the object of size 64")
+__naked void loop_counter_precision_2nd_iter(void)
+{
+ asm volatile (
+ "call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+ "*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0;"
+ "r1 = 2;"
+ "if r0 == 42 goto +1;"
+ "r1 = 1;"
+ "r2 = loop_cb5 ll;"
+ "r3 = r10;"
+ "r3 += -8;"
+ "r4 = 0;"
+ /*
+ * Explore with nr_loops=1 on a first path and nr_loops=2 on a second path.
+ * Buggy verifier did not propagate r1 precision properly,
+ * and thus checkpoints created for nr_loops=1 case matched nr_loops=2 case.
+ */
+ "call %[bpf_loop];"
+ "r0 = 0;"
+ "exit;"
+ :
+ : __imm(bpf_loop),
+ __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+ : __clobber_all
+ );
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";