Merge branch 'bpf: refine retval for bpf_get_task_stack helper'

Dave Marchevsky says:

====================

Similarly to the bpf_get_stack helper, bpf_get_task_stack's return value
can be more tightly bound by the verifier - it's the number of bytes
written to a user-supplied buffer, or a negative error value. Currently
the verifier believes bpf_task_get_stack's retval bounds to be unknown,
requiring extraneous bounds checking to remedy.

Adding it to do_refine_retval_range fixes the issue, as evidenced by
new selftests which fail to load if retval bounds are not refined.

v2: Addressed comment nit in patch 3
====================

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

kernel/bpf/verifier.c

@@ -5808,6 +5808,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type,
 
 	if (ret_type != RET_INTEGER ||
 	    (func_id != BPF_FUNC_get_stack &&
+	     func_id != BPF_FUNC_get_task_stack &&
 	     func_id != BPF_FUNC_probe_read_str &&
 	     func_id != BPF_FUNC_probe_read_kernel_str &&
 	     func_id != BPF_FUNC_probe_read_user_str))

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_iter.c

@@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ static void test_task_stack(void)
 		return;
 
 	do_dummy_read(skel->progs.dump_task_stack);
+	do_dummy_read(skel->progs.get_task_user_stacks);
 
 	bpf_iter_task_stack__destroy(skel);
 }

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task_stack.c

@@ -35,3 +35,30 @@ int dump_task_stack(struct bpf_iter__task *ctx)
 
 	return 0;
 }
+
+SEC("iter/task")
+int get_task_user_stacks(struct bpf_iter__task *ctx)
+{
+	struct seq_file *seq = ctx->meta->seq;
+	struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
+	uint64_t buf_sz = 0;
+	int64_t res;
+
+	if (task == (void *)0)
+		return 0;
+
+	res = bpf_get_task_stack(task, entries,
+			MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH * SIZE_OF_ULONG, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
+	if (res <= 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	buf_sz += res;
+
+	/* If the verifier doesn't refine bpf_get_task_stack res, and instead
+	 * assumes res is entirely unknown, this program will fail to load as
+	 * the verifier will believe that max buf_sz value allows reading
+	 * past the end of entries in bpf_seq_write call
+	 */
+	bpf_seq_write(seq, &entries, buf_sz);
+	return 0;
+}

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c

@@ -42,3 +42,46 @@
 	.result = ACCEPT,
 	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
 },
+{
+	"bpf_get_task_stack return R0 range is refined",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_6, 0), // ctx->meta->seq
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_1, 8), // ctx->task
+	BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), // fixup_map_array_48b
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_7, 0, 2),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_7),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_0), // keep buf for seq_write
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 48),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
+	BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_get_task_stack),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_9),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_seq_write),
+
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.result = ACCEPT,
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING,
+	.expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_ITER,
+	.kfunc = "task",
+	.runs = -1, // Don't run, just load
+	.fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 },
+},