Commit b7137c4e authored by Daniel Borkmann's avatar Daniel Borkmann Committed by Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: fix check_map_access smin_value test when pointer contains offset

In check_map_access() we probe actual bounds through __check_map_access()
with offset of reg->smin_value + off for lower bound and offset of
reg->umax_value + off for the upper bound. However, even though the
reg->smin_value could have a negative value, the final result of the
sum with off could be positive when pointer arithmetic with known and
unknown scalars is combined. In this case we reject the program with
an error such as "R<x> min value is negative, either use unsigned index
or do a if (index >=0) check." even though the access itself would be
fine. Therefore extend the check to probe whether the actual resulting
reg->smin_value + off is less than zero.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <>
Acked-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <>
parent 9d7eceed
......@@ -1443,13 +1443,17 @@ static int check_map_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
if (env->log.level)
print_verifier_state(env, state);
/* The minimum value is only important with signed
* comparisons where we can't assume the floor of a
* value is 0. If we are using signed variables for our
* index'es we need to make sure that whatever we use
* will have a set floor within our range.
if (reg->smin_value < 0) {
if (reg->smin_value < 0 &&
(reg->smin_value == S64_MIN ||
(off + reg->smin_value != (s64)(s32)(off + reg->smin_value)) ||
reg->smin_value + off < 0)) {
verbose(env, "R%d min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.\n",
return -EACCES;
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment