Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1605009019-22310-1-git-send-email-kaixuxia@tencent.com> <CAOJe8K2tL5x-dESsV+PFq1Gii-yB=fJh7i-=E-FbrJeioo6pqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJe8K2tL5x-dESsV+PFq1Gii-yB=fJh7i-=E-FbrJeioo6pqA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:42:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzaSXd4FSM7v+HMobCSkuvATB5mZRZ6ZPzG4PzQ959jv4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix unsigned 'datasec_id' compared with zero in check_pseudo_btf_id
To:     Denis Kirjanov <kda@linux-powerpc.org>
Cc:     xiakaixu1987@gmail.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:02 AM Denis Kirjanov <kda@linux-powerpc.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/20, xiakaixu1987@gmail.com <xiakaixu1987@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
> >
> > The unsigned variable datasec_id is assigned a return value from the call
> > to check_pseudo_btf_id(), which may return negative error code.
> >
> > Fixes coccicheck warning:
> >
> > ./kernel/bpf/verifier.c:9616:5-15: WARNING: Unsigned expression compared
> > with zero: datasec_id > 0
> >
> > Reported-by: Tosk Robot <tencent_os_robot@tencent.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 6200519582a6..e9d8d4309bb4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -9572,7 +9572,7 @@ static int check_pseudo_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env
> > *env,
> >                              struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >                              struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux)
> >  {
> > -     u32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;
> > +     s32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;
>
> but the value is passed as u32 to btf_type_by_id()...
>
> btf_find_by_name_kind() returns s32

Right, valid range of BTF type IDs are >= 0 and (significantly) less
than INT_MAX. So s32 is used to signal valid BTF ID or negative error,
but all the APIs accepting BTF ID accept it as just u32.

>
>
> >       const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
> >       const struct btf_type *datasec;
> >       const struct btf_type *t;
> > --
> > 2.20.0
> >
> >