bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around jmp32's jeq/jne

Kuee reported a quirk in the jmp32's jeq/jne simulation, namely that the register value does not match expectations for the fall-through path. For example: Before fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P571 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok After fix: 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2_w=P0 1: (b7) r6 = 563 ; R6_w=P563 2: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 3: (87) r2 = -r2 ; R2_w=Pscalar() 4: (4c) w2 |= w6 ; R2_w=Pscalar(umin=563,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x233; 0xfffffdcc),s32_min=-2147483085) R6_w=P563 5: (56) if w2 != 0x8 goto pc+1 ; R2_w=P8 <--- [*] 6: (95) exit R0 !read_ok As can be seen on line 5 for the branch fall-through path in R2 [*] is that given condition w2 != 0x8 is false, verifier should conclude that r2 = 8 as upper 32 bit are known to be zero. However, verifier incorrectly concludes that r2 = 571 which is far off. The problem is it only marks false{true}_reg as known in the switch for JE/NE case, but at the end of the function, it uses {false,true}_{64,32}off to update {false,true}_reg->var_off and they still hold the prior value of {false,true}_reg->var_off before it got marked as known. The subsequent __reg_combine_32_into_64() then propagates this old var_off and derives new bounds. The information between min/max bounds on {false,true}_reg from setting the register to known const combined with the {false,true}_reg->var_off based on the old information then derives wrong register data. Fix it by detangling the BPF_JEQ/BPF_JNE cases and updating relevant {false,true}_{64,32}off tnums along with the register marking to known constant.

DBDaniel Borkmann committed 4 years ago