Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-112548-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0000000000003dc8e00614076ab6@google.com> <CAADnVQLORV5PT0iTAhRER+iLBTkByCYNBYyvBSgjN1T31K+gOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABWLsetXQ8Xj-RECoyC7mp4YrdSsPwmSvkS36Eq2JKLfAYULuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAADnVQJAa1SREsqz9LY+-1OnbazWC-=O=TPuq-VEWkzp1ckH1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQJAa1SREsqz9LY+-1OnbazWC-=O=TPuq-VEWkzp1ckH1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:12:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CABWLseuLmAys-YuyFVeug+XR0_xjZROvgRTXz3U6cNiT+pBX0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: stack access issue. Re: [syzbot] [bpf?] UBSAN:
 array-index-out-of-bounds in check_stack_range_initialized
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Eddy Z <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, 
	syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 8:52=E2=80=AFPM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 5:50=E2=80=AFPM Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> >
> > + Edward
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:33=E2=80=AFAM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrei,
> > >
> > > looks like the refactoring of stack access introduced a bug.
> > > See the reproducer below.
> > > positive offsets are not caught by check_stack_access_within_bounds()=
.
> >
> > check_stack_access_within_bounds() tries to catch positive offsets;
> > It does: [1]
> >
> > err =3D check_stack_slot_within_bounds(env, min_off, state, type);
> > if (!err && max_off > 0)
> >   err =3D -EINVAL; /* out of stack access into non-negative offsets */
> >
> > Notice the max_off > 0 in there.
> > And we have various tests that seem to check that positive offsets are
> > rejected. Do you know what the bug is?
> > I'm thinking maybe there's some overflow going on, except that UBSAN
> > reported an index of -1 as being the problem.
> >
> > Edward, I see that you've been tickling the robot trying to narrow the =
issue;
> > perhaps you've figured it out?
> >
> > If the bug is not immediately apparent to anyone, I would really apprec=
iate a
> > bit of tutoring around how to reproduce and get verifier logs.
>
> The repro is right there in the email I forwarded:
>
> > C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=3D15c38711180=
000

I understand, but how does one go from this to either BPF assembly,
or to running it in such a way that you also get verifier logs?