linux/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v4.11

bpf, verifier: fix rejection of unaligned access checks for map_value_adj

2017-04-01T19:36:37Z

Currently, the verifier doesn't reject unaligned access for map_value_adj register types. Commit 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") added logic to check_ptr_alignment() extending it from PTR_TO_PACKET to also PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ, but for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ no enforcement is in place, because reg->id for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ reg types is never non-zero, meaning, we can cause BPF_H/_W/_DW-based unaligned access for architectures not supporting efficient unaligned access, and thus worst case could raise exceptions on some archs that are unable to correct the unaligned access or perform a different memory access to the actual requested one and such. i) Unaligned load with !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0x42533a00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+11 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r0 +0) 8: (35) if r1 >= 0xb goto pc+9 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R10=fp 9: (07) r0 += 3 10: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R10=fp 11: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r0 +2) R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=10 R7=inv R10=fp [...] ii) Unaligned store with !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0x4df16a00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+19 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (07) r0 += 3 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 42 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp 9: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +2) = 43 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp 10: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 -2) = 44 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=3 R10=fp [...] For the PTR_TO_PACKET type, reg->id is initially zero when skb->data was fetched, it later receives a reg->id from env->id_gen generator once another register with UNKNOWN_VALUE type was added to it via check_packet_ptr_add(). The purpose of this reg->id is twofold: i) it is used in find_good_pkt_pointers() for setting the allowed access range for regs with PTR_TO_PACKET of same id once verifier matched on data/data_end tests, and ii) for check_ptr_alignment() to determine that when not having efficient unaligned access and register with UNKNOWN_VALUE was added to PTR_TO_PACKET, that we're only allowed to access the content bytewise due to unknown unalignment. reg->id was never intended for PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} types and thus is always zero, the only marking is in PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL that was added after 484611357c19 via 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers"). Above tests will fail for non-root environment due to prohibited pointer arithmetic. The fix splits register-type specific checks into their own helper instead of keeping them combined, so we don't run into a similar issue in future once we extend check_ptr_alignment() further and forget to add reg->type checks for some of the checks. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{, _adj} register types

2017-04-01T19:36:37Z

While looking into map_value_adj, I noticed that alu operations directly on the map_value() resp. map_value_adj() register (any alu operation on a map_value() register will turn it into a map_value_adj() typed register) are not sufficiently protected against some of the operations. Two non-exhaustive examples are provided that the verifier needs to reject: i) BPF_AND on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0xbf842a00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (57) r0 &= 8 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=8 R10=fp 9: (95) exit from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit processed 10 insns ii) BPF_ADD in 32 bit mode on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0xc24eee00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (04) (u32) r0 += (u32) 0 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit processed 10 insns Issue is, while min_value / max_value boundaries for the access are adjusted appropriately, we change the pointer value in a way that cannot be sufficiently tracked anymore from its origin. Operations like BPF_{AND,OR,DIV,MUL,etc} on a destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} was probably unintended, in fact, all the test cases coming with 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") perform BPF_ADD only on the destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ. Only for UNKNOWN_VALUE register types such operations make sense, f.e. with unknown memory content fetched initially from a constant offset from the map value memory into a register. That register is then later tested against lower / upper bounds, so that the verifier can then do the tracking of min_value / max_value, and properly check once that UNKNOWN_VALUE register is added to the destination register with type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ}. This is also what the original use-case is solving. Note, tracking on what is being added is done through adjust_reg_min_max_vals() and later access to the map value enforced with these boundaries and the given offset from the insn through check_map_access_adj(). Tests will fail for non-root environment due to prohibited pointer arithmetic, in particular in check_alu_op(), we bail out on the is_pointer_value() check on the dst_reg (which is false in root case as we allow for pointer arithmetic via env->allow_ptr_leaks). Similarly to PTR_TO_PACKET, one way to fix it is to restrict the allowed operations on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} registers to 64 bit mode BPF_ADD. The test_verifier suite runs fine after the patch and it also rejects mentioned test cases. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: improve verifier packet range checks

2017-03-25T03:51:28Z

llvm can optimize the 'if (ptr > data_end)' checks to be in the order slightly different than the original C code which will confuse verifier. Like: if (ptr + 16 > data_end) return TC_ACT_SHOT; // may be followed by if (ptr + 14 > data_end) return TC_ACT_SHOT; while llvm can see that 'ptr' is valid for all 16 bytes, the verifier could not. Fix verifier logic to account for such case and add a test. Reported-by: Huapeng Zhou Fixes: 969bf05eb3ce ("bpf: direct packet access") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: update the comment about the length of analysis

2017-03-01T22:56:50Z

Commit 07016151a446 ("bpf, verifier: further improve search pruning") increased the limit of processed instructions from 32k to 64k, but the comment still mentioned the 32k limit. This commit updates the comment to reflect the change. Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Gary Lin Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: fix spelling mistake: "proccessed" -> "processed"

2017-02-23T15:46:08Z

trivial fix to spelling mistake in verbose log message Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: reduce compiler warnings by adding fallthrough comments

2017-02-14T19:32:12Z

Fixes the following warnings: kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘may_access_direct_pkt_data’: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:702:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] if (t == BPF_WRITE) ^ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:704:2: note: here case BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS: ^~~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘reg_set_min_max_inv’: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2057:23: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] true_reg->min_value = 0; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2058:2: note: here case BPF_JSGT: ^~~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2068:23: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] true_reg->min_value = 0; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2069:2: note: here case BPF_JSGE: ^~~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c: In function ‘reg_set_min_max’: kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2009:24: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] false_reg->min_value = 0; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2010:2: note: here case BPF_JSGT: ^~~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2019:24: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] false_reg->min_value = 0; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2020:2: note: here case BPF_JSGE: ^~~~ Reported-by: David Binderman Signed-off-by: Alexander Alemayhu Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: enable verifier to add 0 to packet ptr

2017-02-07T03:50:04Z

The patch fixes the case when adding a zero value to the packet pointer. The zero value could come from src_reg equals type BPF_K or CONST_IMM. The patch fixes both, otherwise the verifer reports the following error: [...] R0=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=4) R2=pkt_end R3=fp-12 R4=imm4,min_value=4,max_value=4 R5=pkt(id=0,off=4,r=4) 269: (bf) r2 = r0 // r2 becomes imm0 270: (77) r2 >>= 3 271: (bf) r4 = r1 // r4 becomes pkt ptr 272: (0f) r4 += r2 // r4 += 0 addition of negative constant to packet pointer is not allowed Signed-off-by: William Tu Signed-off-by: Mihai Budiu Cc: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: enable verifier to better track const alu ops

2017-01-24T19:46:06Z

William reported couple of issues in relation to direct packet access. Typical scheme is to check for data + [off] <= data_end, where [off] can be either immediate or coming from a tracked register that contains an immediate, depending on the branch, we can then access the data. However, in case of calculating [off] for either the mentioned test itself or for access after the test in a more "complex" way, then the verifier will stop tracking the CONST_IMM marked register and will mark it as UNKNOWN_VALUE one. Adding that UNKNOWN_VALUE typed register to a pkt() marked register, the verifier then bails out in check_packet_ptr_add() as it finds the registers imm value below 48. In the first below example, that is due to evaluate_reg_imm_alu() not handling right shifts and thus marking the register as UNKNOWN_VALUE via helper __mark_reg_unknown_value() that resets imm to 0. In the second case the same happens at the time when r4 is set to r4 &= r5, where it transitions to UNKNOWN_VALUE from evaluate_reg_imm_alu(). Later on r4 we shift right by 3 inside evaluate_reg_alu(), where the register's imm turns into 3. That is, for registers with type UNKNOWN_VALUE, imm of 0 means that we don't know what value the register has, and for imm > 0 it means that the value has [imm] upper zero bits. F.e. when shifting an UNKNOWN_VALUE register by 3 to the right, no matter what value it had, we know that the 3 upper most bits must be zero now. This is to make sure that ALU operations with unknown registers don't overflow. Meaning, once we know that we have more than 48 upper zero bits, or, in other words cannot go beyond 0xffff offset with ALU ops, such an addition will track the target register as a new pkt() register with a new id, but 0 offset and 0 range, so for that a new data/data_end test will be required. Is the source register a CONST_IMM one that is to be added to the pkt() register, or the source instruction is an add instruction with immediate value, then it will get added if it stays within max 0xffff bounds. >From there, pkt() type, can be accessed should reg->off + imm be within the access range of pkt(). [...] from 28 to 30: R0=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1 R1=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=22) R2=pkt_end R3=imm144,min_value=144,max_value=144 R4=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0 R5=inv48,min_value=2054,max_value=2054 R10=fp 30: (bf) r5 = r3 31: (07) r5 += 23 32: (77) r5 >>= 3 33: (bf) r6 = r1 34: (0f) r6 += r5 cannot add integer value with 0 upper zero bits to ptr_to_packet [...] from 52 to 80: R0=imm1,min_value=1,max_value=1 R1=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=34) R2=pkt_end R3=inv R4=imm272 R5=inv56,min_value=17,max_value=17 R6=pkt(id=0,off=26,r=34) R10=fp 80: (07) r4 += 71 81: (18) r5 = 0xfffffff8 83: (5f) r4 &= r5 84: (77) r4 >>= 3 85: (0f) r1 += r4 cannot add integer value with 3 upper zero bits to ptr_to_packet Thus to get above use-cases working, evaluate_reg_imm_alu() has been extended for further ALU ops. This is fine, because we only operate strictly within realm of CONST_IMM types, so here we don't care about overflows as they will happen in the simulated but also real execution and interaction with pkt() in check_packet_ptr_add() will check actual imm value once added to pkt(), but it's irrelevant before. With regards to 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") that works on UNKNOWN_VALUE registers, the verifier becomes now a bit smarter as it can better resolve ALU ops, so we need to adapt two test cases there, as min/max bound tracking only becomes necessary when registers were spilled to stack. So while mask was set before to track upper bound for UNKNOWN_VALUE case, it's now resolved directly as CONST_IMM, and such contructs are only necessary when f.e. registers are spilled. For commit 6b17387307ba ("bpf: recognize 64bit immediate loads as consts") that initially enabled dw load tracking only for nfp jit/ analyzer, I did couple of tests on large, complex programs and we don't increase complexity badly (my tests were in ~3% range on avg). I've added a couple of tests similar to affected code above, and it works fine with verifier now. Reported-by: William Tu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Gianluca Borello Cc: William Tu Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net

2017-01-17T20:19:37Z

bpf: rework prog_digest into prog_tag

2017-01-16T19:03:31Z

Commit 7bd509e311f4 ("bpf: add prog_digest and expose it via fdinfo/netlink") was recently discussed, partially due to admittedly suboptimal name of "prog_digest" in combination with sha1 hash usage, thus inevitably and rightfully concerns about its security in terms of collision resistance were raised with regards to use-cases. The intended use cases are for debugging resp. introspection only for providing a stable "tag" over the instruction sequence that both kernel and user space can calculate independently. It's not usable at all for making a security relevant decision. So collisions where two different instruction sequences generate the same tag can happen, but ideally at a rather low rate. The "tag" will be dumped in hex and is short enough to introspect in tracepoints or kallsyms output along with other data such as stack trace, etc. Thus, this patch performs a rename into prog_tag and truncates the tag to a short output (64 bits) to make it obvious it's not collision-free. Should in future a hash or facility be needed with a security relevant focus, then we can think about requirements, constraints, etc that would fit to that situation. For now, rework the exposed parts for the current use cases as long as nothing has been released yet. Tested on x86_64 and s390x. Fixes: 7bd509e311f4 ("bpf: add prog_digest and expose it via fdinfo/netlink") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Andy Lutomirski Signed-off-by: David S. Miller