selftests/bpf: Verify copy_register_state() preserves parent/live fields

A testcase to check that verifier.c:copy_register_state() preserves
register parentage chain and livness information.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>

Author: eddyz87

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

@@ -225,3 +225,39 @@
 	.result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
 	.insn_processed = 15,
 },
+/* The test performs a conditional 64-bit write to a stack location
+ * fp[-8], this is followed by an unconditional 8-bit write to fp[-8],
+ * then data is read from fp[-8]. This sequence is unsafe.
+ *
+ * The test would be mistakenly marked as safe w/o dst register parent
+ * preservation in verifier.c:copy_register_state() function.
+ *
+ * Note the usage of BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ to force creation of the
+ * checkpoint state after conditional 64-bit assignment.
+ */
+{
+	"write tracking and register parent chain bug",
+	.insns = {
+	/* r6 = ktime_get_ns() */
+	BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
+	/* r0 = ktime_get_ns() */
+	BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns),
+	/* if r0 > r6 goto +1 */
+	BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6, 1),
+	/* *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0xdeadbeef */
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_FP, -8, 0xdeadbeef),
+	/* r1 = 42 */
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 42),
+	/* *(u8 *)(r10 - 8) = r1 */
+	BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_FP, BPF_REG_1, -8),
+	/* r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) */
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_FP, -8),
+	/* exit(0) */
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.flags = BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ,
+	.errstr = "invalid read from stack off -8+1 size 8",
+	.result = REJECT,
+},