Tail-called programs could execute any of the helpers that invalidate
packet pointers. Hence, conservatively assume that each tail call
invalidates packet pointers.
Making the change in bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data() automatically makes
use of check_cfg() logic that computes 'changes_pkt_data' effect for
global sub-programs, such that the following program could be
rejected:
int tail_call(struct __sk_buff *sk)
{
bpf_tail_call_static(sk, &jmp_table, 0);
return 0;
}
SEC("tc")
int not_safe(struct __sk_buff *sk)
{
int *p = (void *)(long)sk->data;
... make p valid ...
tail_call(sk);
*p = 42; /* this is unsafe */
...
}
The tc_bpf2bpf.c:subprog_tc() needs change: mark it as a function that
can invalidate packet pointers. Otherwise, it can't be freplaced with
tailcall_freplace.c:entry_freplace() that does a tail call.
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241210041100.1898468-8-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
1a4607ffba