Commit e9548901 authored by Josef Bacik's avatar Josef Bacik Committed by David S. Miller

bpf: add test for the verifier equal logic bug

This is a test to verify that

bpf: fix states equal logic for varlen access

actually fixed the problem.  The problem was if the register we added to our map
register was UNKNOWN in both the false and true branches and the only thing that
changed was the range then we'd incorrectly assume that the true branch was
valid, which it really wasnt.  This tests this case and properly fails without
my fix in place and passes with it in place.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Acked-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent ddf952a1
...@@ -2660,6 +2660,29 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { ...@@ -2660,6 +2660,29 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = ACCEPT, .result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS
}, },
{
"invalid map access from else condition",
.insns = {
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_1, MAX_ENTRIES-1, 1),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, 0, offsetof(struct test_val, foo)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map2 = { 3 },
.errstr = "R0 unbounded memory access, make sure to bounds check any array access into a map",
.result = REJECT,
.errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic prohibited",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
},
}; };
static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp) static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment