From 6279846b9b2532e1b04559ef8bd0dec049f29383 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Chaignon Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:20:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0] var_off=(0, 0) Improving the range refinement for JSET to cover all cases is tricky. We also don't expect many users to rely on JSET given LLVM doesn't generate those instructions. So instead of improving the range refinement for JSETs, Eduard suggested we forget the ranges whenever we're narrowing tnums after a JSET. This patch implements that approach. Reported-by: syzbot+c711ce17dd78e5d4fdcf@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9d4fd6432a095d281f815770608fdcd16028ce0b.1752171365.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 53007182b46b..e2fcea860755 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -16208,6 +16208,10 @@ static void regs_refine_cond_op(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_state if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32)) break; val = reg_const_value(reg2, is_jmp32); + /* Forget the ranges before narrowing tnums, to avoid invariant + * violations if we're on a dead branch. + */ + __mark_reg_unbounded(reg1); if (is_jmp32) { t = tnum_and(tnum_subreg(reg1->var_off), tnum_const(~val)); reg1->var_off = tnum_with_subreg(reg1->var_off, t); -- 2.47.2