Commit 179d1c56 authored by Jann Horn's avatar Jann Horn Committed by Daniel Borkmann

bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer

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: f1174f77 ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
Signed-off-by: default avatarJann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
parent a5ec6ae1
...@@ -3467,15 +3467,14 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state *rold, struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, ...@@ -3467,15 +3467,14 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state *rold, struct bpf_reg_state *rcur,
return range_within(rold, rcur) && return range_within(rold, rcur) &&
tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off); tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off);
} else { } else {
/* if we knew anything about the old value, we're not /* We're trying to use a pointer in place of a scalar.
* equal, because we can't know anything about the * Even if the scalar was unbounded, this could lead to
* scalar value of the pointer in the new value. * 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 && return false;
rold->umax_value == U64_MAX &&
rold->smin_value == S64_MIN &&
rold->smax_value == S64_MAX &&
tnum_is_unknown(rold->var_off);
} }
case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
/* If the new min/max/var_off satisfy the old ones and /* If the new min/max/var_off satisfy the old ones and
......
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