diff options
| author | Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> | 2026-08-31 18:36:10 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2026-09-02 11:13:21 -0700 |
| commit | 7ac9662189069914a088ec61ad85dc46b5cb1563 (patch) | |
| tree | c704c586a0296ed1b8a5f8aa4e24d3672f5a0c6d /tools | |
| parent | e3e4f66cc4b72333d0886ae2673c360248987889 (diff) | |
| download | linux-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.c | 39 |
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"; |
