diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 18 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 491 |
2 files changed, 498 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index 03037373b447..19393b0964a8 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ struct bpf_reg_state { */ s32 subreg_def; enum bpf_reg_liveness live; + /* if (!precise && SCALAR_VALUE) min/max/tnum don't affect safety */ + bool precise; }; enum bpf_stack_slot_type { @@ -190,6 +192,11 @@ struct bpf_func_state { struct bpf_stack_state *stack; }; +struct bpf_idx_pair { + u32 prev_idx; + u32 idx; +}; + #define MAX_CALL_FRAMES 8 struct bpf_verifier_state { /* call stack tracking */ @@ -245,6 +252,17 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state { u32 curframe; u32 active_spin_lock; bool speculative; + + /* first and last insn idx of this verifier state */ + u32 first_insn_idx; + u32 last_insn_idx; + /* jmp history recorded from first to last. + * backtracking is using it to go from last to first. + * For most states jmp_history_cnt is [0-3]. + * For loops can go up to ~40. + */ + struct bpf_idx_pair *jmp_history; + u32 jmp_history_cnt; }; #define bpf_get_spilled_reg(slot, frame) \ diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 870c8f19ce80..709ce4cef8ba 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -455,12 +455,12 @@ static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, verbose(env, " R%d", i); print_liveness(env, reg->live); verbose(env, "=%s", reg_type_str[t]); + if (t == SCALAR_VALUE && reg->precise) + verbose(env, "P"); if ((t == SCALAR_VALUE || t == PTR_TO_STACK) && tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) { /* reg->off should be 0 for SCALAR_VALUE */ verbose(env, "%lld", reg->var_off.value + reg->off); - if (t == PTR_TO_STACK) - verbose(env, ",call_%d", func(env, reg)->callsite); } else { verbose(env, "(id=%d", reg->id); if (reg_type_may_be_refcounted_or_null(t)) @@ -522,11 +522,17 @@ static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, continue; verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE); print_liveness(env, state->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live); - if (state->stack[i].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL) - verbose(env, "=%s", - reg_type_str[state->stack[i].spilled_ptr.type]); - else + if (state->stack[i].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL) { + reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr; + t = reg->type; + verbose(env, "=%s", reg_type_str[t]); + if (t == SCALAR_VALUE && reg->precise) + verbose(env, "P"); + if (t == SCALAR_VALUE && tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) + verbose(env, "%lld", reg->var_off.value + reg->off); + } else { verbose(env, "=%s", types_buf); + } } if (state->acquired_refs && state->refs[0].id) { verbose(env, " refs=%d", state->refs[0].id); @@ -675,6 +681,13 @@ static void free_func_state(struct bpf_func_state *state) kfree(state); } +static void clear_jmp_history(struct bpf_verifier_state *state) +{ + kfree(state->jmp_history); + state->jmp_history = NULL; + state->jmp_history_cnt = 0; +} + static void free_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *state, bool free_self) { @@ -684,6 +697,7 @@ static void free_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *state, free_func_state(state->frame[i]); state->frame[i] = NULL; } + clear_jmp_history(state); if (free_self) kfree(state); } @@ -711,8 +725,18 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state, const struct bpf_verifier_state *src) { struct bpf_func_state *dst; + u32 jmp_sz = sizeof(struct bpf_idx_pair) * src->jmp_history_cnt; int i, err; + if (dst_state->jmp_history_cnt < src->jmp_history_cnt) { + kfree(dst_state->jmp_history); + dst_state->jmp_history = kmalloc(jmp_sz, GFP_USER); + if (!dst_state->jmp_history) + return -ENOMEM; + } + memcpy(dst_state->jmp_history, src->jmp_history, jmp_sz); + dst_state->jmp_history_cnt = src->jmp_history_cnt; + /* if dst has more stack frames then src frame, free them */ for (i = src->curframe + 1; i <= dst_state->curframe; i++) { free_func_state(dst_state->frame[i]); @@ -723,6 +747,8 @@ static int copy_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst_state, dst_state->active_spin_lock = src->active_spin_lock; dst_state->branches = src->branches; dst_state->parent = src->parent; + dst_state->first_insn_idx = src->first_insn_idx; + dst_state->last_insn_idx = src->last_insn_idx; for (i = 0; i <= src->curframe; i++) { dst = dst_state->frame[i]; if (!dst) { @@ -967,6 +993,9 @@ static void __mark_reg_unbounded(struct bpf_reg_state *reg) reg->smax_value = S64_MAX; reg->umin_value = 0; reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; + + /* constant backtracking is enabled for root only for now */ + reg->precise = capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? false : true; } /* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */ @@ -1378,6 +1407,389 @@ static int check_reg_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, return 0; } +/* for any branch, call, exit record the history of jmps in the given state */ +static int push_jmp_history(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + struct bpf_verifier_state *cur) +{ + u32 cnt = cur->jmp_history_cnt; + struct bpf_idx_pair *p; + + cnt++; + p = krealloc(cur->jmp_history, cnt * sizeof(*p), GFP_USER); + if (!p) + return -ENOMEM; + p[cnt - 1].idx = env->insn_idx; + p[cnt - 1].prev_idx = env->prev_insn_idx; + cur->jmp_history = p; + cur->jmp_history_cnt = cnt; + return 0; +} + +/* Backtrack one insn at a time. If idx is not at the top of recorded + * history then previous instruction came from straight line execution. + */ +static int get_prev_insn_idx(struct bpf_verifier_state *st, int i, + u32 *history) +{ + u32 cnt = *history; + + if (cnt && st->jmp_history[cnt - 1].idx == i) { + i = st->jmp_history[cnt - 1].prev_idx; + (*history)--; + } else { + i--; + } + return i; +} + +/* For given verifier state backtrack_insn() is called from the last insn to + * the first insn. Its purpose is to compute a bitmask of registers and + * stack slots that needs precision in the parent verifier state. + */ +static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, + u32 *reg_mask, u64 *stack_mask) +{ + const struct bpf_insn_cbs cbs = { + .cb_print = verbose, + .private_data = env, + }; + struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi + idx; + u8 class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code); + u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); + u8 mode = BPF_MODE(insn->code); + u32 dreg = 1u << insn->dst_reg; + u32 sreg = 1u << insn->src_reg; + u32 spi; + + if (insn->code == 0) + return 0; + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL) { + verbose(env, "regs=%x stack=%llx before ", *reg_mask, *stack_mask); + verbose(env, "%d: ", idx); + print_bpf_insn(&cbs, insn, env->allow_ptr_leaks); + } + + if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) { + if (!(*reg_mask & dreg)) + return 0; + if (opcode == BPF_MOV) { + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) { + /* dreg = sreg + * dreg needs precision after this insn + * sreg needs precision before this insn + */ + *reg_mask &= ~dreg; + *reg_mask |= sreg; + } else { + /* dreg = K + * dreg needs precision after this insn. + * Corresponding register is already marked + * as precise=true in this verifier state. + * No further markings in parent are necessary + */ + *reg_mask &= ~dreg; + } + } else { + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) { + /* dreg += sreg + * both dreg and sreg need precision + * before this insn + */ + *reg_mask |= sreg; + } /* else dreg += K + * dreg still needs precision before this insn + */ + } + } else if (class == BPF_LDX) { + if (!(*reg_mask & dreg)) + return 0; + *reg_mask &= ~dreg; + + /* scalars can only be spilled into stack w/o losing precision. + * Load from any other memory can be zero extended. + * The desire to keep that precision is already indicated + * by 'precise' mark in corresponding register of this state. + * No further tracking necessary. + */ + if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_FP) + return 0; + if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) + return 0; + + /* dreg = *(u64 *)[fp - off] was a fill from the stack. + * that [fp - off] slot contains scalar that needs to be + * tracked with precision + */ + spi = (-insn->off - 1) / BPF_REG_SIZE; + if (spi >= 64) { + verbose(env, "BUG spi %d\n", spi); + WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); + return -EFAULT; + } + *stack_mask |= 1ull << spi; + } else if (class == BPF_STX) { + if (*reg_mask & dreg) + /* stx shouldn't be using _scalar_ dst_reg + * to access memory. It means backtracking + * encountered a case of pointer subtraction. + */ + return -ENOTSUPP; + /* scalars can only be spilled into stack */ + if (insn->dst_reg != BPF_REG_FP) + return 0; + if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) + return 0; + spi = (-insn->off - 1) / BPF_REG_SIZE; + if (spi >= 64) { + verbose(env, "BUG spi %d\n", spi); + WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); + return -EFAULT; + } + if (!(*stack_mask & (1ull << spi))) + return 0; + *stack_mask &= ~(1ull << spi); + *reg_mask |= sreg; + } else if (class == BPF_JMP || class == BPF_JMP32) { + if (opcode == BPF_CALL) { + if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) + return -ENOTSUPP; + /* regular helper call sets R0 */ + *reg_mask &= ~1; + if (*reg_mask & 0x3f) { + /* if backtracing was looking for registers R1-R5 + * they should have been found already. + */ + verbose(env, "BUG regs %x\n", *reg_mask); + WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); + return -EFAULT; + } + } else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) { + return -ENOTSUPP; + } + } else if (class == BPF_LD) { + if (!(*reg_mask & dreg)) + return 0; + *reg_mask &= ~dreg; + /* It's ld_imm64 or ld_abs or ld_ind. + * For ld_imm64 no further tracking of precision + * into parent is necessary + */ + if (mode == BPF_IND || mode == BPF_ABS) + /* to be analyzed */ + return -ENOTSUPP; + } else if (class == BPF_ST) { + if (*reg_mask & dreg) + /* likely pointer subtraction */ + return -ENOTSUPP; + } + return 0; +} + +/* the scalar precision tracking algorithm: + * . at the start all registers have precise=false. + * . scalar ranges are tracked as normal through alu and jmp insns. + * . once precise value of the scalar register is used in: + * . ptr + scalar alu + * . if (scalar cond K|scalar) + * . helper_call(.., scalar, ...) where ARG_CONST is expected + * backtrack through the verifier states and mark all registers and + * stack slots with spilled constants that these scalar regisers + * should be precise. + * . during state pruning two registers (or spilled stack slots) + * are equivalent if both are not precise. + * + * Note the verifier cannot simply walk register parentage chain, + * since many different registers and stack slots could have been + * used to compute single precise scalar. + * + * The approach of starting with precise=true for all registers and then + * backtrack to mark a register as not precise when the verifier detects + * that program doesn't care about specific value (e.g., when helper + * takes register as ARG_ANYTHING parameter) is not safe. + * + * It's ok to walk single parentage chain of the verifier states. + * It's possible that this backtracking will go all the way till 1st insn. + * All other branches will be explored for needing precision later. + * + * The backtracking needs to deal with cases like: + * R8=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1952,imm=0) R9_w=map_value(id=0,off=40,ks=4,vs=1952,imm=0) + * r9 -= r8 + * r5 = r9 + * if r5 > 0x79f goto pc+7 + * R5_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1951,var_off=(0x0; 0x7ff)) + * r5 += 1 + * ... + * call bpf_perf_event_output#25 + * where .arg5_type = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO + * + * and this case: + * r6 = 1 + * call foo // uses callee's r6 inside to compute r0 + * r0 += r6 + * if r0 == 0 goto + * + * to track above reg_mask/stack_mask needs to be independent for each frame. + * + * Also if parent's curframe > frame where backtracking started, + * the verifier need to mark registers in both frames, otherwise callees + * may incorrectly prune callers. This is similar to + * commit 7640ead93924 ("bpf: verifier: make sure callees don't prune with caller differences") + * + * For now backtracking falls back into conservative marking. + */ +static void mark_all_scalars_precise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + struct bpf_verifier_state *st) +{ + struct bpf_func_state *func; + struct bpf_reg_state *reg; + int i, j; + + /* big hammer: mark all scalars precise in this path. + * pop_stack may still get !precise scalars. + */ + for (; st; st = st->parent) + for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) { + func = st->frame[i]; + for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) { + reg = &func->regs[j]; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) + continue; + reg->precise = true; + } + for (j = 0; j < func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; j++) { + if (func->stack[j].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) + continue; + reg = &func->stack[j].spilled_ptr; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) + continue; + reg->precise = true; + } + } +} + +static int mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) +{ + struct bpf_verifier_state *st = env->cur_state; + int first_idx = st->first_insn_idx; + int last_idx = env->insn_idx; + struct bpf_func_state *func; + struct bpf_reg_state *reg; + u32 reg_mask = 1u << regno; + u64 stack_mask = 0; + bool skip_first = true; + int i, err; + + if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) + /* backtracking is root only for now */ + return 0; + + func = st->frame[st->curframe]; + reg = &func->regs[regno]; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { + WARN_ONCE(1, "backtracing misuse"); + return -EFAULT; + } + if (reg->precise) + return 0; + func->regs[regno].precise = true; + + for (;;) { + DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, 64); + bool new_marks = false; + u32 history = st->jmp_history_cnt; + + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL) + verbose(env, "last_idx %d first_idx %d\n", last_idx, first_idx); + for (i = last_idx;;) { + if (skip_first) { + err = 0; + skip_first = false; + } else { + err = backtrack_insn(env, i, ®_mask, &stack_mask); + } + if (err == -ENOTSUPP) { + mark_all_scalars_precise(env, st); + return 0; + } else if (err) { + return err; + } + if (!reg_mask && !stack_mask) + /* Found assignment(s) into tracked register in this state. + * Since this state is already marked, just return. + * Nothing to be tracked further in the parent state. + */ + return 0; + if (i == first_idx) + break; + i = get_prev_insn_idx(st, i, &history); + if (i >= env->prog->len) { + /* This can happen if backtracking reached insn 0 + * and there are still reg_mask or stack_mask + * to backtrack. + * It means the backtracking missed the spot where + * particular register was initialized with a constant. + */ + verbose(env, "BUG backtracking idx %d\n", i); + WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); + return -EFAULT; + } + } + st = st->parent; + if (!st) + break; + + func = st->frame[st->curframe]; + bitmap_from_u64(mask, reg_mask); + for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 32) { + reg = &func->regs[i]; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) + continue; + if (!reg->precise) + new_marks = true; + reg->precise = true; + } + + bitmap_from_u64(mask, stack_mask); + for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 64) { + if (i >= func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE) { + /* This can happen if backtracking + * is propagating stack precision where + * caller has larger stack frame + * than callee, but backtrack_insn() should + * have returned -ENOTSUPP. + */ + verbose(env, "BUG spi %d stack_size %d\n", + i, func->allocated_stack); + WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); + return -EFAULT; + } + + if (func->stack[i].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) + continue; + reg = &func->stack[i].spilled_ptr; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) + continue; + if (!reg->precise) + new_marks = true; + reg->precise = true; + } + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL) { + print_verifier_state(env, func); + verbose(env, "parent %s regs=%x stack=%llx marks\n", + new_marks ? "didn't have" : "already had", + reg_mask, stack_mask); + } + + if (!new_marks) + break; + + last_idx = st->last_insn_idx; + first_idx = st->first_insn_idx; + } + return 0; +} + + static bool is_spillable_regtype(enum bpf_reg_type type) { switch (type) { @@ -1435,6 +1847,7 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, { struct bpf_func_state *cur; /* state of the current function */ int i, slot = -off - 1, spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE, err; + u32 dst_reg = env->prog->insnsi[insn_idx].dst_reg; struct bpf_reg_state *reg = NULL; err = realloc_func_state(state, round_up(slot + 1, BPF_REG_SIZE), @@ -1457,6 +1870,17 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (reg && size == BPF_REG_SIZE && register_is_const(reg) && !register_is_null(reg) && env->allow_ptr_leaks) { + if (dst_reg != BPF_REG_FP) { + /* The backtracking logic can only recognize explicit + * stack slot address like [fp - 8]. Other spill of + * scalar via different register has to be conervative. + * Backtrack from here and mark all registers as precise + * that contributed into 'reg' being a constant. + */ + err = mark_chain_precision(env, value_regno); + if (err) + return err; + } save_register_state(state, spi, reg); } else if (reg && is_spillable_regtype(reg->type)) { /* register containing pointer is being spilled into stack */ @@ -1529,8 +1953,13 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; /* when we zero initialize stack slots mark them as such */ - if (reg && register_is_null(reg)) + if (reg && register_is_null(reg)) { + /* backtracking doesn't work for STACK_ZERO yet. */ + err = mark_chain_precision(env, value_regno); + if (err) + return err; type = STACK_ZERO; + } /* Mark slots affected by this stack write. */ for (i = 0; i < size; i++) @@ -1610,6 +2039,17 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * so the whole register == const_zero */ __mark_reg_const_zero(&state->regs[value_regno]); + /* backtracking doesn't support STACK_ZERO yet, + * so mark it precise here, so that later + * backtracking can stop here. + * Backtracking may not need this if this register + * doesn't participate in pointer adjustment. + * Forward propagation of precise flag is not + * necessary either. This mark is only to stop + * backtracking. Any register that contributed + * to const 0 was marked precise before spill. + */ + state->regs[value_regno].precise = true; } else { /* have read misc data from the stack */ mark_reg_unknown(env, state->regs, value_regno); @@ -2925,6 +3365,8 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, err = check_helper_mem_access(env, regno - 1, reg->umax_value, zero_size_allowed, meta); + if (!err) + err = mark_chain_precision(env, regno); } else if (arg_type_is_int_ptr(arg_type)) { int size = int_ptr_type_to_size(arg_type); @@ -4361,6 +4803,7 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *regs = state->regs, *dst_reg, *src_reg; struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg = NULL, off_reg = {0}; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); + int err; dst_reg = ®s[insn->dst_reg]; src_reg = NULL; @@ -4387,11 +4830,17 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * This is legal, but we have to reverse our * src/dest handling in computing the range */ + err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->dst_reg); + if (err) + return err; return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, src_reg, dst_reg); } } else if (ptr_reg) { /* pointer += scalar */ + err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->src_reg); + if (err) + return err; return adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(env, insn, dst_reg, src_reg); } @@ -5348,6 +5797,13 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, tnum_is_const(src_reg->var_off)) pred = is_branch_taken(dst_reg, src_reg->var_off.value, opcode, is_jmp32); + if (pred >= 0) { + err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->dst_reg); + if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err) + err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->src_reg); + if (err) + return err; + } if (pred == 1) { /* only follow the goto, ignore fall-through */ *insn_idx += insn->off; @@ -5825,6 +6281,11 @@ peek_stack: goto peek_stack; else if (ret < 0) goto err_free; + /* unconditional jmp is not a good pruning point, + * but it's marked, since backtracking needs + * to record jmp history in is_state_visited(). + */ + init_explored_state(env, t + insns[t].off + 1); /* tell verifier to check for equivalent states * after every call and jump */ @@ -6325,6 +6786,8 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_reg_state *rold, struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, switch (rold->type) { case SCALAR_VALUE: if (rcur->type == SCALAR_VALUE) { + if (!rold->precise && !rcur->precise) + return true; /* new val must satisfy old val knowledge */ return range_within(rold, rcur) && tnum_in(rold->var_off, rcur->var_off); @@ -6675,6 +7138,7 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx) int i, j, err, states_cnt = 0; bool add_new_state = false; + cur->last_insn_idx = env->prev_insn_idx; if (!env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].prune_point) /* this 'insn_idx' instruction wasn't marked, so we will not * be doing state search here @@ -6791,10 +7255,10 @@ next: env->max_states_per_insn = states_cnt; if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && states_cnt > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STATES) - return 0; + return push_jmp_history(env, cur); if (!add_new_state) - return 0; + return push_jmp_history(env, cur); /* There were no equivalent states, remember the current one. * Technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet, @@ -6824,7 +7288,10 @@ next: new->insn_idx = insn_idx; WARN_ONCE(new->branches != 1, "BUG is_state_visited:branches_to_explore=%d insn %d\n", new->branches, insn_idx); + cur->parent = new; + cur->first_insn_idx = insn_idx; + clear_jmp_history(cur); new_sl->next = *explored_state(env, insn_idx); *explored_state(env, insn_idx) = new_sl; /* connect new state to parentage chain. Current frame needs all @@ -6904,6 +7371,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) struct bpf_reg_state *regs; int insn_cnt = env->prog->len; bool do_print_state = false; + int prev_insn_idx = -1; env->prev_linfo = NULL; @@ -6929,6 +7397,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) u8 class; int err; + env->prev_insn_idx = prev_insn_idx; if (env->insn_idx >= insn_cnt) { verbose(env, "invalid insn idx %d insn_cnt %d\n", env->insn_idx, insn_cnt); @@ -7001,6 +7470,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) regs = cur_regs(env); env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = true; + prev_insn_idx = env->insn_idx; if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) { err = check_alu_op(env, insn); @@ -7174,7 +7644,6 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (state->curframe) { /* exit from nested function */ - env->prev_insn_idx = env->insn_idx; err = prepare_func_exit(env, &env->insn_idx); if (err) return err; @@ -7206,7 +7675,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return err; process_bpf_exit: update_branch_counts(env, env->cur_state); - err = pop_stack(env, &env->prev_insn_idx, + err = pop_stack(env, &prev_insn_idx, &env->insn_idx); if (err < 0) { if (err != -ENOENT) |