[PATCH net-next] bpf: enhance verifier to understand stack pointer arithmetic

From: Yonghong Song <redacted>

llvm 4.0 and above generates the code like below:
....
440: (b7) r1 = 15
441: (05) goto pc+73
515: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r10 -152)
516: (bf) r7 = r10
517: (07) r7 += -112
518: (bf) r2 = r7
519: (0f) r2 += r1
520: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0)
521: (73) *(u8 *)(r2 +45) = r1
....
and the verifier complains "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'" for insn #521.
This is because verifier marks register r2 as unknown value after #519
where r2 is a stack pointer and r1 holds a constant value.

Teach verifier to recognize "stack_ptr + imm" and
"stack_ptr + reg with const val" as valid stack_ptr with new offset.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <redacted>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <redacted>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
technically it's 'net' material, but it's too late for 'net',
hence 'net-next' tag.
No 'Fixes' tag, since it's only seen with newer llvm.
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       | 11 +++++++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 6f8b6ed690be..c2ff608c1984 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -1924,6 +1924,17 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 			return 0;
 		} else if (opcode == BPF_ADD &&
 			   BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 &&
+			   dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK &&
+			   ((BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
+			     regs[insn->src_reg].type == CONST_IMM) ||
+			    BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K)) {
+			if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X)
+				dst_reg->imm += regs[insn->src_reg].imm;
+			else
+				dst_reg->imm += insn->imm;
+			return 0;
+		} else if (opcode == BPF_ADD &&
+			   BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 &&
 			   (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET ||
 			    (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X &&
 			     regs[insn->src_reg].type == PTR_TO_PACKET))) {

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 95a8d5f3ab80..0ea89456d478 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c

@@ -1814,16 +1814,22 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = ACCEPT,
 	},
 	{
-		"unpriv: obfuscate stack pointer",
+		"stack pointer arithmetic",
 		.insns = {
-			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
-			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
-			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, -10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_7, -10),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(0, BPF_REG_2, 4, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_7),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(0, BPF_REG_2, 4, 0),
 			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
 			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 		},
-		.errstr_unpriv = "R2 pointer arithmetic",
-		.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 		.result = ACCEPT,
 	},
 	{

-- 
2.9.3

From: Alexei Starovoitov <redacted>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:52:42 -0700

From: Yonghong Song <redacted>

llvm 4.0 and above generates the code like below:
....
440: (b7) r1 = 15
441: (05) goto pc+73
515: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r10 -152)
516: (bf) r7 = r10
517: (07) r7 += -112
518: (bf) r2 = r7
519: (0f) r2 += r1
520: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0)
521: (73) *(u8 *)(r2 +45) = r1
....
and the verifier complains "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'" for insn #521.
This is because verifier marks register r2 as unknown value after #519
where r2 is a stack pointer and r1 holds a constant value.

Teach verifier to recognize "stack_ptr + imm" and
"stack_ptr + reg with const val" as valid stack_ptr with new offset.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <redacted>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <redacted>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
technically it's 'net' material, but it's too late for 'net',
hence 'net-next' tag.
No 'Fixes' tag, since it's only seen with newer llvm.

Applied to net-next, but I'll queue this up to -stable.