Added a verifier test for assigning 32bit reg states to
64bit where 32bit reg holds a constant value of 0.

Without previous kernel verifier.c fix, the test in
this patch will fail.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/159077335867.6014.2075350327073125374.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

After previous fix for zero extension test_verifier tests #65 and #66 now
fail. Before the fix we can see the alu32 mov op at insn 10

10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=invP(id=0,
              smin_value=4294967168,smax_value=4294967423,
              umin_value=4294967168,umax_value=4294967423,
              var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffff),
              s32_min_value=-2147483648,s32_max_value=2147483647,
              u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
10: (bc) w1 = w1
11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=invP(id=0,
              smin_value=0,smax_value=2147483647,
              umin_value=0,umax_value=4294967295,
              var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff),
              s32_min_value=-2147483648,s32_max_value=2147483647,
              u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm

After the fix at insn 10 because we have 's32_min_value < 0' the following
step 11 now has 'smax_value=U32_MAX' where before we pulled the s32_max_value
bound into the smax_value as seen above in 11 with smax_value=2147483647.

10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=inv(id=0,
             smin_value=4294967168,smax_value=4294967423,
             umin_value=4294967168,umax_value=4294967423,
             var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffff),
             s32_min_value=-2147483648, s32_max_value=2147483647,
             u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
10: (bc) w1 = w1
11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=inv(id=0,
             smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967295,
             umin_value=0,umax_value=4294967295,
             var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff),
             s32_min_value=-2147483648, s32_max_value=2147483647,
             u32_min_value=0, u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm

The fall out of this is by the time we get to the failing instruction at
step 14 where previously we had the following:

14: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=inv(id=0,
             smin_value=72057594021150720,smax_value=72057594029539328,
             umin_value=72057594021150720,umax_value=72057594029539328,
             var_off=(0xffffffff000000; 0xffffff),
             s32_min_value=-16777216,s32_max_value=-1,
             u32_min_value=-16777216,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
14: (0f) r0 += r1

We now have,

14: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=inv(id=0,
             smin_value=0,smax_value=72057594037927935,
             umin_value=0,umax_value=72057594037927935,
             var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffff),
             s32_min_value=-2147483648,s32_max_value=2147483647,
             u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm
14: (0f) r0 += r1

In the original step 14 'smin_value=72057594021150720' this trips the logic
in the verifier function check_reg_sane_offset(),

 if (smin >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || smin <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
	verbose(env, "value %lld makes %s pointer be out of bounds\n",
		smin, reg_type_str[type]);
	return false;
 }

Specifically, the 'smin <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF' check. But with the fix
at step 14 we have bounds 'smin_value=0' so the above check is not tripped
because BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF=1<<29.

We have a smin_value=0 here because at step 10 the smaller smin_value=0 means
the subtractions at steps 11 and 12 bring the smin_value negative.

11: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
12: (17) r1 -= 2147483584
13: (77) r1 >>= 8

Then the shift clears the top bit and smin_value is set to 0. Note we still
have the smax_value in the fixed code so any reads will fail. An alternative
would be to have reg_sane_check() do both smin and smax value tests.

To fix the test we can omit the 'r1 >>=8' at line 13. This will change the
err string, but keeps the intention of the test as suggseted by the title,
"check after truncation of boundary-crossing range". If the verifier logic
changes a different value is likely to be thrown in the error or the error
will no longer be thrown forcing this test to be examined. With this change
we see the new state at step 13.

13: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0)
    R1_w=invP(id=0,
              smin_value=-4294967168,smax_value=127,
              umin_value=0,umax_value=18446744073709551615,
              s32_min_value=-2147483648,s32_max_value=2147483647,
              u32_min_value=0,u32_max_value=-1)
    R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm

Giving the expected out of bounds error, "value -4294967168 makes map_value
pointer be out of bounds" However, for unpriv case we see a different error
now because of the mixed signed bounds pointer arithmatic. This seems OK so
I've only added the unpriv_errstr for this. Another optino may have been to
do addition on r1 instead of subtraction but I favor the approach above
slightly.

Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/159077333942.6014.14004320043595756079.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower

As discussed in [0], it's dangerous to allow mapping BPF map, that's meant to
be frozen and is read-only on BPF program side, because that allows user-space
to actually store a writable view to the page even after it is frozen. This is
exacerbated by BPF verifier making a strong assumption that contents of such
frozen map will remain unchanged. To prevent this, disallow mapping
BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG mmap()'able BPF maps as writable, ever.

  [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzYGWYhXdp6BJ7_=9OQPJxQpgug080MMjdSB72i9R+5c6g@mail.gmail.com/

Fixes: fc9702273e2e ("bpf: Add mmap() support for BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY")
Suggested-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200519053824.1089415-1-andriin@fb.com

There are a few fentry/fexit programs returning non-0.
The tests with these programs will break with the previous
patch which enfoced return-0 rules. Fix them properly.

Fixes: ac065870d928 ("selftests/bpf: Add BPF_PROG, BPF_KPROBE, and BPF_KRETPROBE macros")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200514053207.1298479-1-yhs@fb.com

mmap() subsystem allows user-space application to memory-map region with
initial page offset. This wasn't taken into account in initial implementation
of BPF array memory-mapping. This would result in wrong pages, not taking into
account requested page shift, being memory-mmaped into user-space. This patch
fixes this gap and adds a test for such scenario.

Fixes: fc9702273e2e ("bpf: Add mmap() support for BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200512235925.3817805-1-andriin@fb.com

Commit 51c39bb1d5d1 ("bpf: Introduce function-by-function verification")
introduced function linkage flag and changed the error message from
"vlen != 0" to "Invalid func linkage" and broke some fake BPF programs.

Adjust the test accordingly.

AFACT, the programs don't really need any arguments and only look
at BTF for maps, so let's drop the args altogether.

Before:
BTF raw test[103] (func (Non zero vlen)): do_test_raw:3703:FAIL expected
err_str:vlen != 0
magic: 0xeb9f
version: 1
flags: 0x0
hdr_len: 24
type_off: 0
type_len: 72
str_off: 72
str_len: 10
btf_total_size: 106
[1] INT (anon) size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=SIGNED
[2] INT (anon) size=4 bits_offset=0 nr_bits=32 encoding=(none)
[3] FUNC_PROTO (anon) return=0 args=(1 a, 2 b)
[4] FUNC func type_id=3 Invalid func linkage

BTF libbpf test[1] (test_btf_haskv.o): libbpf: load bpf program failed:
Invalid argument
libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
libbpf:
Validating test_long_fname_2() func#1...
Arg#0 type PTR in test_long_fname_2() is not supported yet.
processed 0 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0
peak_states 0 mark_read 0

libbpf: -- END LOG --
libbpf: failed to load program 'dummy_tracepoint'
libbpf: failed to load object 'test_btf_haskv.o'
do_test_file:4201:FAIL bpf_object__load: -4007
BTF libbpf test[2] (test_btf_newkv.o): libbpf: load bpf program failed:
Invalid argument
libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
libbpf:
Validating test_long_fname_2() func#1...
Arg#0 type PTR in test_long_fname_2() is not supported yet.
processed 0 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0
peak_states 0 mark_read 0

libbpf: -- END LOG --
libbpf: failed to load program 'dummy_tracepoint'
libbpf: failed to load object 'test_btf_newkv.o'
do_test_file:4201:FAIL bpf_object__load: -4007
BTF libbpf test[3] (test_btf_nokv.o): libbpf: load bpf program failed:
Invalid argument
libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
libbpf:
Validating test_long_fname_2() func#1...
Arg#0 type PTR in test_long_fname_2() is not supported yet.
processed 0 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0
peak_states 0 mark_read 0

libbpf: -- END LOG --
libbpf: failed to load program 'dummy_tracepoint'
libbpf: failed to load object 'test_btf_nokv.o'
do_test_file:4201:FAIL bpf_object__load: -4007

Fixes: 51c39bb1d5d1 ("bpf: Introduce function-by-function verification")
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200422003753.124921-1-sdf@google.com

This adds a new selftest that tests the ability to attach an freplace
program to a program type that relies on the expected_attach_type of the
target program to pass verification.

Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158773526831.293902.16011743438619684815.stgit@toke.dk

This patch adds a test to test_verifier that writes the lower 8 bits of
R10 (aka FP) using BPF_B to an array map and reads the result back. The
expected behavior is that the result should be the same as first copying
R10 to R9, and then storing / loading the lower 8 bits of R9.

This test catches a bug that was present in the x86-64 JIT that caused
an incorrect encoding for BPF_STX BPF_B when the source operand is R10.

Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200418232655.23870-2-luke.r.nels@gmail.com

When check_xadd() verifies an XADD operation on a pointer to a stack slot
containing a spilled pointer, check_stack_read() verifies that the read,
which is part of XADD, is valid. However, since the placeholder value -1 is
passed as `value_regno`, check_stack_read() can only return a binary
decision and can't return the type of the value that was read. The intent
here is to verify whether the value read from the stack slot may be used as
a SCALAR_VALUE; but since check_stack_read() doesn't check the type, and
the type information is lost when check_stack_read() returns, this is not
enforced, and a malicious user can abuse XADD to leak spilled kernel
pointers.

Fix it by letting check_stack_read() verify that the value is usable as a
SCALAR_VALUE if no type information is passed to the caller.

To be able to use __is_pointer_value() in check_stack_read(), move it up.

Fix up the expected unprivileged error message for a BPF selftest that,
until now, assumed that unprivileged users can use XADD on stack-spilled
pointers. This also gives us a test for the behavior introduced in this
patch for free.

In theory, this could also be fixed by forbidding XADD on stack spills
entirely, since XADD is a locked operation (for operations on memory with
concurrency) and there can't be any concurrency on the BPF stack; but
Alexei has said that he wants to keep XADD on stack slots working to avoid
changes to the test suite [1].

The following BPF program demonstrates how to leak a BPF map pointer as an
unprivileged user using this bug:

    // r7 = map_pointer
    BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_7, small_map),
    // r8 = launder(map_pointer)
    BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, BPF_REG_7, -8),
    BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
    ((struct bpf_insn) {
      .code  = BPF_STX | BPF_DW | BPF_XADD,
      .dst_reg = BPF_REG_FP,
      .src_reg = BPF_REG_1,
      .off = -8
    }),
    BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_FP, -8),

    // store r8 into map
    BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG1, BPF_REG_7),
    BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG2, BPF_REG_FP),
    BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_ARG2, -4),
    BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_ARG2, 0, 0),
    BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
    BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
    BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
    BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_8, 0),

    BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
    BPF_EXIT_INSN()

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200416211116.qxqcza5vo2ddnkdq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com/

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200417000007.10734-1-jannh@google.com

David Ahern noticed that there was a bug in the EXPECTED_FD code so
programs did not get detached properly when that parameter was supplied.
This case was not included in the xdp_attach tests; so let's add it to be
sure that such a bug does not sneak back in down.

Fixes: 87854a0b57b3 ("selftests/bpf: Add tests for attaching XDP programs")
Reported-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200414145025.182163-2-toke@redhat.com