[PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[Frank van der Linden]

This is a backport of the BPF verifier fixes for CVE-2021-29155. Original
series was part of the pull request here: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210416223700.15611-1-daniel@iogearbox.net/T/

This wasn't a complicated backport, but copying bpf@ to see if
there are any concerns.

5.4 verifier selftests are clean with this backport:
	Summary: 1566 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

The individual commits:

960114839252 ("bpf: Use correct permission flag for mixed signed bounds arithmetic")
	* Not applicable to 5.4, as 5.4 does not have
	  2c78ee898d8f ("bpf: Implement CAP_BPF").

6f55b2f2a117 ("bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu")
	* Clean cherry-pick.

24c109bb1537 ("bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types")
	* Conflict: allow_ptr_leaks was replaced by bypass_spec_v1 in the
	  deleted PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE switch case by
	  2c78ee898d8f ("bpf: Implement CAP_BPF"). Resolution is easy,
	  the case statement gets deleted either way.

b658bbb844e2 ("bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path")
	* Clean cherry-pick.

a6aaece00a57 ("bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users")
	* Resolved simple contextual conflict in adjust_scalar_min_max_vals().
	  because of a var declaration that was added by this post-5.4 commit:
	  3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking").

073815b756c5 ("bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper")
	* Conflict: another allow_ptr_leaks that was replaced with
	  bypass_spec_v1 after 2c78ee898d8f.
	* Conflict: Post-5.4 commit
	  01f810ace9ed ("bpf: Allow variable-offset stack access")
	  changed the call to check_stack_access to a new function,
	  check_stack_access_for_ptr_arithmetic(), and moved/changed an
	  error message.
	* Since this commit just factors out some code from
	  adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() in to a new function, do the same
  	  with the corresponding block in 5.4 that doesn't have the
	  changes listed above from post-5.4 commits.
	
f528819334 ("bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch")
	* Contextual conflict from post-5.4 commit
	  3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking"),
	  that added a comment on top of the switch referenced in the commit
	  message.

7fedb63a8307 ("bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask")
	* Contextual conflict post-5.4 commit:
	  3f50f132d840 ("bpf: Verifier, do explicit ALU32 bounds tracking")
	  added a call to a new function just above the switch statement in
	  adjust_ptr_min_max_vals. This doesn't affect the lines that were
	  actually changed.

d7a509135175 ("bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states")
	* The bounds.c tests have undergone several changes since 5.4, related
	  to commits that were not backported (like e.g. the ALU32 changes).
	  The error messages for those tests will remain the same on 5.4.

=====

Daniel Borkmann (8):
  bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu
  bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types
  bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path
  bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users
  bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper
  bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch
  bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask
  bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 233 ++++++++++++------
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c |  21 +-
 .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c     |  13 -
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c |   2 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c  |   6 +-
 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)

-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 1/8] bpf: Move off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 6f55b2f2a1178856c19bbce2f71449926e731914 upstream.

Small refactor to drag off_reg into sanitize_ptr_alu(), so we later on can
use off_reg for generalizing some of the checks for all pointer types.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ab2a4b7dfca5..b776aa0d8864 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4336,11 +4336,12 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
-			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
-			    bool off_is_neg)
+			    const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
 {
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state;
 	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env);
+	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
 	u32 alu_state, alu_limit;
@@ -4474,7 +4475,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
 			return ret;
@@ -4529,7 +4530,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		}
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0);
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
 			return ret;
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 2/8] bpf: Ensure off_reg has no mixed signed bounds for all types

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 24c109bb1537c12c02aeed2d51a347b4d6a9b76e upstream.

The mixed signed bounds check really belongs into retrieve_ptr_limit()
instead of outside of it in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). The reason is
that this check is not tied to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE only, but to all pointer
types that we handle in retrieve_ptr_limit() and given errors from the latter
propagate back to adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() and lead to rejection of the
program, it's a better place to reside to avoid anything slipping through
for future types. The reason why we must reject such off_reg is that we
otherwise would not be able to derive a mask, see details in 9d7eceede769
("bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged").

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b776aa0d8864..6cb1be115928 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4264,12 +4264,18 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 }
 
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
-			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode, bool off_is_neg)
+			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode)
 {
+	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
 	u32 off, max;
 
+	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
+	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
+		return -EACCES;
+
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
 		/* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the
@@ -4363,7 +4369,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
 		     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
 
-	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg);
+	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 
@@ -4408,8 +4414,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	    smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value;
 	u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value,
 	    umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value;
-	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
 
 	dst_reg = &regs[dst];
@@ -4452,13 +4458,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic on %s prohibited\n",
 			dst, reg_type_str[ptr_reg->type]);
 		return -EACCES;
-	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
-		if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && !known && (smin_val < 0) != (smax_val < 0)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root\n",
-				off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src);
-			return -EACCES;
-		}
-		/* fall-through */
 	default:
 		break;
 	}
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 3/8] bpf: Rework ptr_limit into alu_limit and add common error path

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit b658bbb844e28f1862867f37e8ca11a8e2aa94a3 upstream.

Small refactor with no semantic changes in order to consolidate the max
ptr_limit boundary check.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 6cb1be115928..a6ff4b26a462 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4265,12 +4265,12 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
-			      u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode)
+			      u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode)
 {
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
-	u32 off, max;
+	u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
@@ -4287,22 +4287,27 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 		 */
 		off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value;
 		if (mask_to_left)
-			*ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
+			ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
 		else
-			*ptr_limit = -off - 1;
-		return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
+			ptr_limit = -off - 1;
+		break;
 	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
 		max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size;
 		if (mask_to_left) {
-			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
+			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
 		} else {
 			off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
-			*ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
+			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
 		}
-		return *ptr_limit >= max ? -ERANGE : 0;
+		break;
 	default:
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
+
+	if (ptr_limit >= max)
+		return -ERANGE;
+	*alu_limit = ptr_limit;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static bool can_skip_alu_sanitation(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 4/8] bpf: Improve verifier error messages for users

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit a6aaece00a57fa6f22575364b3903dfbccf5345d upstream.

Consolidate all error handling and provide more user-friendly error messages
from sanitize_ptr_alu() and sanitize_val_alu().

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index a6ff4b26a462..59718101fd04 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4263,6 +4263,14 @@ static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 	return &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx];
 }
 
+enum {
+	REASON_BOUNDS	= -1,
+	REASON_TYPE	= -2,
+	REASON_PATHS	= -3,
+	REASON_LIMIT	= -4,
+	REASON_STACK	= -5,
+};
+
 static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			      const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
 			      u32 *alu_limit, u8 opcode)
@@ -4274,7 +4282,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
-		return -EACCES;
+		return REASON_BOUNDS;
 
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
@@ -4301,11 +4309,11 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 		}
 		break;
 	default:
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return REASON_TYPE;
 	}
 
 	if (ptr_limit >= max)
-		return -ERANGE;
+		return REASON_LIMIT;
 	*alu_limit = ptr_limit;
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -4325,7 +4333,7 @@ static int update_alu_sanitation_state(struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux,
 	if (aux->alu_state &&
 	    (aux->alu_state != alu_state ||
 	     aux->alu_limit != alu_limit))
-		return -EACCES;
+		return REASON_PATHS;
 
 	/* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */
 	aux->alu_state = alu_state;
@@ -4398,7 +4406,46 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	ret = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, true);
 	if (!ptr_is_dst_reg && ret)
 		*dst_reg = tmp;
-	return !ret ? -EFAULT : 0;
+	return !ret ? REASON_STACK : 0;
+}
+
+static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+			const struct bpf_insn *insn, int reason,
+			const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
+			const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+{
+	static const char *err = "pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root";
+	const char *op = BPF_OP(insn->code) == BPF_ADD ? "add" : "sub";
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg;
+
+	switch (reason) {
+	case REASON_BOUNDS:
+		verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, %s\n",
+			off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_TYPE:
+		verbose(env, "R%d has pointer with unsupported alu operation, %s\n",
+			off_reg == dst_reg ? src : dst, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_PATHS:
+		verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s from different maps, paths or scalars, %s\n",
+			dst, op, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_LIMIT:
+		verbose(env, "R%d tried to %s beyond pointer bounds, %s\n",
+			dst, op, err);
+		break;
+	case REASON_STACK:
+		verbose(env, "R%d could not be pushed for speculative verification, %s\n",
+			dst, err);
+		break;
+	default:
+		verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unknown reason (%d)\n",
+			reason);
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return -EACCES;
 }
 
 /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off.
@@ -4480,10 +4527,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+
 		/* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow
 		 * the s32 'off' field
 		 */
@@ -4535,10 +4581,9 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+
 		if (dst_reg == off_reg) {
 			/* scalar -= pointer.  Creates an unknown scalar */
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n",
@@ -4655,7 +4700,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	s64 smin_val, smax_val;
 	u64 umin_val, umax_val;
 	u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32;
-	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (insn_bitness == 32) {
@@ -4692,10 +4736,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different pointers or scalars\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) ||
 		    signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) {
 			dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
@@ -4716,10 +4758,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different pointers or scalars\n", dst);
-			return ret;
-		}
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) ||
 		    signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) {
 			/* Overflow possible, we know nothing */
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 5/8] bpf: Refactor and streamline bounds check into helper

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 073815b756c51ba9d8384d924c5d1c03ca3d1ae4 upstream.

Move the bounds check in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() into a small helper named
sanitize_check_bounds() in order to simplify the former a bit.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backport to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 59718101fd04..fc33aed59333 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4448,6 +4448,41 @@ static int sanitize_err(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	return -EACCES;
 }
 
+static int sanitize_check_bounds(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
+				 const struct bpf_insn *insn,
+				 const struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+{
+	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
+
+	/* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds
+	 * in order to be able to sanitize access later on.
+	 */
+	if (env->allow_ptr_leaks)
+		return 0;
+
+	switch (dst_reg->type) {
+	case PTR_TO_STACK:
+		if (check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off +
+				       dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) {
+			verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, "
+				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
+			return -EACCES;
+		}
+		break;
+	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
+		if (check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) {
+			verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, "
+				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
+			return -EACCES;
+		}
+		break;
+	default:
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off.
  * Caller should also handle BPF_MOV case separately.
  * If we return -EACCES, caller may want to try again treating pointer as a
@@ -4664,23 +4699,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	__reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
 	__reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
 
-	/* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds
-	 * in order to be able to sanitize access later on.
-	 */
-	if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) {
-		if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE &&
-		    check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, "
-				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
-			return -EACCES;
-		} else if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK &&
-			   check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off +
-					      dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) {
-			verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, "
-				"prohibited for !root\n", dst);
-			return -EACCES;
-		}
-	}
+	if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
+		return -EACCES;
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 6/8] bpf: Move sanitize_val_alu out of op switch

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit f528819334881fd622fdadeddb3f7edaed8b7c9b upstream.

Add a small sanitize_needed() helper function and move sanitize_val_alu()
out of the main opcode switch. In upcoming work, we'll move sanitize_ptr_alu()
as well out of its opcode switch so this helps to streamline both.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index fc33aed59333..b8abdbb4c063 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4352,6 +4352,11 @@ static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	return update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER, 0);
 }
 
+static bool sanitize_needed(u8 opcode)
+{
+	return opcode == BPF_ADD || opcode == BPF_SUB;
+}
+
 static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
@@ -4753,11 +4758,14 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	switch (opcode) {
-	case BPF_ADD:
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
 		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
+	}
+
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_ADD:
 		if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) ||
 		    signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) {
 			dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN;
@@ -4777,9 +4785,6 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, NULL, NULL);
 		if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) ||
 		    signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) {
 			/* Overflow possible, we know nothing */
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 7/8] bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit 7fedb63a8307dda0ec3b8969a3b233a1dd7ea8e0 upstream.

This work tightens the offset mask we use for unprivileged pointer arithmetic
in order to mitigate a corner case reported by Piotr and Benedict where in
the speculative domain it is possible to advance, for example, the map value
pointer by up to value_size-1 out-of-bounds in order to leak kernel memory
via side-channel to user space.

Before this change, the computed ptr_limit for retrieve_ptr_limit() helper
represents largest valid distance when moving pointer to the right or left
which is then fed as aux->alu_limit to generate masking instructions against
the offset register. After the change, the derived aux->alu_limit represents
the largest potential value of the offset register which we mask against which
is just a narrower subset of the former limit.

For minimal complexity, we call sanitize_ptr_alu() from 2 observation points
in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), that is, before and after the simulated alu
operation. In the first step, we retieve the alu_state and alu_limit before
the operation as well as we branch-off a verifier path and push it to the
verification stack as we did before which checks the dst_reg under truncation,
in other words, when the speculative domain would attempt to move the pointer
out-of-bounds.

In the second step, we retrieve the new alu_limit and calculate the absolute
distance between both. Moreover, we commit the alu_state and final alu_limit
via update_alu_sanitation_state() to the env's instruction aux data, and bail
out from there if there is a mismatch due to coming from different verification
paths with different states.

Reported-by: Piotr Krysiuk <piotras@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Benedict Schlueter <benedict.schlueter@rub.de>
[fllinden@amazon.com: backported to 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b8abdbb4c063..bc439dcd438f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4278,7 +4278,7 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD &&  off_is_neg) ||
 			    (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg);
-	u32 off, max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
+	u32 max = 0, ptr_limit = 0;
 
 	if (!tnum_is_const(off_reg->var_off) &&
 	    (off_reg->smin_value < 0) != (off_reg->smax_value < 0))
@@ -4287,26 +4287,18 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 	switch (ptr_reg->type) {
 	case PTR_TO_STACK:
 		/* Offset 0 is out-of-bounds, but acceptable start for the
-		 * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP.
+		 * left direction, see BPF_REG_FP. Also, unknown scalar
+		 * offset where we would need to deal with min/max bounds is
+		 * currently prohibited for unprivileged.
 		 */
 		max = MAX_BPF_STACK + mask_to_left;
-		/* Indirect variable offset stack access is prohibited in
-		 * unprivileged mode so it's not handled here.
-		 */
-		off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value;
-		if (mask_to_left)
-			ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off;
-		else
-			ptr_limit = -off - 1;
+		ptr_limit = -(ptr_reg->var_off.value + ptr_reg->off);
 		break;
 	case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE:
 		max = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size;
-		if (mask_to_left) {
-			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off;
-		} else {
-			off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off;
-			ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off - 1;
-		}
+		ptr_limit = (mask_to_left ?
+			     ptr_reg->smin_value :
+			     ptr_reg->umax_value) + ptr_reg->off;
 		break;
 	default:
 		return REASON_TYPE;
@@ -4361,10 +4353,12 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			    struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg,
 			    const struct bpf_reg_state *off_reg,
-			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg)
+			    struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
+			    struct bpf_insn_aux_data *tmp_aux,
+			    const bool commit_window)
 {
+	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = commit_window ? cur_aux(env) : tmp_aux;
 	struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state;
-	struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env);
 	bool off_is_neg = off_reg->smin_value < 0;
 	bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg;
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
@@ -4383,18 +4377,33 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	if (vstate->speculative)
 		goto do_sim;
 
-	alu_state  = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0;
-	alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
-		     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
-
 	err = retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, off_reg, &alu_limit, opcode);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 
+	if (commit_window) {
+		/* In commit phase we narrow the masking window based on
+		 * the observed pointer move after the simulated operation.
+		 */
+		alu_state = tmp_aux->alu_state;
+		alu_limit = abs(tmp_aux->alu_limit - alu_limit);
+	} else {
+		alu_state  = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0;
+		alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ?
+			     BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST;
+	}
+
 	err = update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit);
 	if (err < 0)
 		return err;
 do_sim:
+	/* If we're in commit phase, we're done here given we already
+	 * pushed the truncated dst_reg into the speculative verification
+	 * stack.
+	 */
+	if (commit_window)
+		return 0;
+
 	/* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under
 	 * speculative execution from truncation as a result of
 	 * masking when off was not within expected range. If off
@@ -4506,6 +4515,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	    smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value;
 	u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value,
 	    umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value;
+	struct bpf_insn_aux_data tmp_aux = {};
 	u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code);
 	u32 dst = insn->dst_reg;
 	int ret;
@@ -4564,12 +4574,15 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	    !check_reg_sane_offset(env, ptr_reg, ptr_reg->type))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	switch (opcode) {
-	case BPF_ADD:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
+				       &tmp_aux, false);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	}
 
+	switch (opcode) {
+	case BPF_ADD:
 		/* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow
 		 * the s32 'off' field
 		 */
@@ -4620,10 +4633,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		}
 		break;
 	case BPF_SUB:
-		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
-
 		if (dst_reg == off_reg) {
 			/* scalar -= pointer.  Creates an unknown scalar */
 			verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n",
@@ -4706,6 +4715,12 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 
 	if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
 		return -EACCES;
+	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
+		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, dst_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
+				       &tmp_aux, true);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret, off_reg, dst_reg);
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.23.3

[PATCH 5.4 8/8] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states

[Frank van der Linden]

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

commit d7a5091351756d0ae8e63134313c455624e36a13 upstream.

Update various selftest error messages:

 * The 'Rx tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types'
   is reworked into more specific/differentiated error messages for better
   guidance.

 * The change into 'value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of
   bounds' is due to moving the mixed bounds check into the speculation
   handling and thus occuring slightly later than above mentioned sanity
   check.

 * The change into 'math between map_value pointer and register with
   unbounded min value' is similarly due to register sanity check coming
   before the mixed bounds check.

 * The case of 'map access: known scalar += value_ptr from different maps'
   now loads fine given masks are the same from the different paths (despite
   max map value size being different).

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
[fllinden@amazon - skip bounds.c test mods, they won't change error msg on 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c | 21 ++++++++++---------
 .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c     | 13 ------------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c |  2 +-
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c  |  6 ++----
 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
index c162498a64fc..91869aea6d64 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.retval = 1,
@@ -34,22 +34,23 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
 	"check deducing bounds from const, 4",
 	.insns = {
+		BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
 		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 		BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
-		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R6 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
@@ -61,7 +62,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
@@ -88,7 +89,7 @@
 			    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
 	.result = REJECT,
 	.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -103,7 +104,7 @@
 			    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
 	.result = REJECT,
 	.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -116,7 +117,7 @@
 		BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
 	.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
index 9baca7a75c42..c2aa6f26738b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -43,7 +42,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -69,7 +67,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -94,7 +91,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -141,7 +137,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -210,7 +205,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -260,7 +254,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -287,7 +280,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -313,7 +305,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -342,7 +333,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R7 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -372,7 +362,6 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
@@ -400,7 +389,5 @@
 	},
 	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
 	.errstr = "unbounded min value",
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
 	.result = REJECT,
-	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 },
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
index 0d621c841db1..c3f6f650deb7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@
 	BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, -8),
 	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	},
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 },
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
index 00b59d5d7a7f..28d44e6aa0b7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -21,8 +21,6 @@
 	.fixup_map_hash_16b = { 5 },
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 8 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
-	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps",
 	.retval = 1,
 },
 {
@@ -122,7 +120,7 @@
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different pointers or scalars",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
 	.retval = 0,
 },
 {
@@ -169,7 +167,7 @@
 	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
-	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
 	.retval = 0,
 },
 {
-- 
2.23.3

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:08:31PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> This is a backport of the BPF verifier fixes for CVE-2021-29155. Original
> series was part of the pull request here: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210416223700.15611-1-daniel@iogearbox.net/T/
> 
> This wasn't a complicated backport, but copying bpf@ to see if
> there are any concerns.
> 
> 5.4 verifier selftests are clean with this backport:
> 	Summary: 1566 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> 
> The individual commits:

Many thanks for these, now queued up.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[van der Linden, Frank]

Sure. I have a 4.14 one coming up too, but that one was just a little harder, and it also corrects a previous backport error that was made (correction was already acked), and picks some other commits to get selftests clean. So I'll probably send it to just bpf@ first.

Others will have to take care of 4.19 or older kernels, though, just flagging that I have done the 4.14 backport for these.

Frank

On 4/30/21, 6:39 AM, "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



    On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:08:31PM +0000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
    > This is a backport of the BPF verifier fixes for CVE-2021-29155. Original
    > series was part of the pull request here: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210416223700.15611-1-daniel@iogearbox.net/T/
    >
    > This wasn't a complicated backport, but copying bpf@ to see if
    > there are any concerns.
    >
    > 5.4 verifier selftests are clean with this backport:
    >       Summary: 1566 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
    >
    > The individual commits:

    Many thanks for these, now queued up.

    greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:38:29PM +0000, van der Linden, Frank wrote:
> Sure. I have a 4.14 one coming up too, but that one was just a little harder, and it also corrects a previous backport error that was made (correction was already acked), and picks some other commits to get selftests clean. So I'll probably send it to just bpf@ first.
> 
> Others will have to take care of 4.19 or older kernels, though, just flagging that I have done the 4.14 backport for these.

I can not take fixes for 4.14 that are not also in 4.19, sorry, as we
can not have people upgrading to newer kernels and have regressions.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 5.4 0/8] BPF backports for CVE-2021-29155

[van der Linden, Frank]

Ok, that's fine. I can't really do 4.19 right now, someone else will have to take care of that one.

In the meantime, I'll re-send my 4.14 series with just the first two patches, that fix a 4.14-specific backport error.

Frank

On 4/30/21, 11:05 PM, "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



    On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:38:29PM +0000, van der Linden, Frank wrote:
    > Sure. I have a 4.14 one coming up too, but that one was just a little harder, and it also corrects a previous backport error that was made (correction was already acked), and picks some other commits to get selftests clean. So I'll probably send it to just bpf@ first.
    >
    > Others will have to take care of 4.19 or older kernels, though, just flagging that I have done the 4.14 backport for these.

    I can not take fixes for 4.14 that are not also in 4.19, sorry, as we
    can not have people upgrading to newer kernels and have regressions.

    thanks,

    greg k-h