bpf: fix precision tracking of stack slots

The problem can be seen in the following two tests:
0: (bf) r3 = r10
1: (55) if r3 != 0x7b goto pc+0
2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = 0
3: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)
..
0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7
1: (bf) r3 = r10
2: (55) if r3 != 0x7b goto pc+0
3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = r0
4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)

When backtracking need to mark R4 it will mark slot fp-8.
But ST or STX into fp-8 could belong to the same block of instructions.
When backtracing is done the parent state may have fp-8 slot
as "unallocated stack". Which will cause verifier to warn
and incorrectly reject such programs.

Writes into stack via non-R10 register are rare. llvm always
generates canonical stack spill/fill.
For such pathological case fall back to conservative precision
tracking instead of rejecting.

Reported-by: syzbot+c8d66267fd2b5955287e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b5c14c9d7b9870c1e122e6debe275d9fe4a5b5b8..c36a719fee6d34a18af09ac4d1e7d0b8c58d377f 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1772,16 +1772,21 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
                bitmap_from_u64(mask, stack_mask);
                for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 64) {
                        if (i >= func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE) {
-                               /* This can happen if backtracking
-                                * is propagating stack precision where
-                                * caller has larger stack frame
-                                * than callee, but backtrack_insn() should
-                                * have returned -ENOTSUPP.
+                               /* the sequence of instructions:
+                                * 2: (bf) r3 = r10
+                                * 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r3 -8) = r0
+                                * 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8)
+                                * doesn't contain jmps. It's backtracked
+                                * as a single block.
+                                * During backtracking insn 3 is not recognized as
+                                * stack access, so at the end of backtracking
+                                * stack slot fp-8 is still marked in stack_mask.
+                                * However the parent state may not have accessed
+                                * fp-8 and it's "unallocated" stack space.
+                                * In such case fallback to conservative.
                                 */
-                               verbose(env, "BUG spi %d stack_size %d\n",
-                                       i, func->allocated_stack);
-                               WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug");
-                               return -EFAULT;
+                               mark_all_scalars_precise(env, st);
+                               return 0;
                        }
 
                        if (func->stack[i].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) {