linux/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v6.4

bpf: ensure main program has an extable

2023-06-13T22:13:52Z

When subprograms are in use, the main program is not jit'd after the subprograms because jit_subprogs sets a value for prog->bpf_func upon success. Subsequent calls to the JIT are bypassed when this value is non-NULL. This leads to a situation where the main program and its func[0] counterpart are both in the bpf kallsyms tree, but only func[0] has an extable. Extables are only created during JIT. Now there are two nearly identical program ksym entries in the tree, but only one has an extable. Depending upon how the entries are placed, there's a chance that a fault will call search_extable on the aux with the NULL entry. Since jit_subprogs already copies state from func[0] to the main program, include the extable pointer in this state duplication. Additionally, ensure that the copy of the main program in func[0] is not added to the bpf_prog_kallsyms table. Instead, let the main program get added later in bpf_prog_load(). This ensures there is only a single copy of the main program in the kallsyms table, and that its tag matches the tag observed by tooling like bpftool. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 1c2a088a6626 ("bpf: x64: add JIT support for multi-function programs") Signed-off-by: Krister Johansen Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Tested-by: Ilya Leoshkevich Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/6de9b2f4b4724ef56efbb0339daaa66c8b68b1e7.1686616663.git.kjlx@templeofstupid.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix verifier id tracking of scalars on spill

2023-06-08T08:27:43Z

The following scenario describes a bug in the verifier where it incorrectly concludes about equivalent scalar IDs which could lead to verifier bypass in privileged mode: 1. Prepare a 32-bit rogue number. 2. Put the rogue number into the upper half of a 64-bit register, and roll a random (unknown to the verifier) bit in the lower half. The rest of the bits should be zero (although variations are possible). 3. Assign an ID to the register by MOVing it to another arbitrary register. 4. Perform a 32-bit spill of the register, then perform a 32-bit fill to another register. Due to a bug in the verifier, the ID will be preserved, although the new register will contain only the lower 32 bits, i.e. all zeros except one random bit. At this point there are two registers with different values but the same ID, which means the integrity of the verifier state has been corrupted. 5. Compare the new 32-bit register with 0. In the branch where it's equal to 0, the verifier will believe that the original 64-bit register is also 0, because it has the same ID, but its actual value still contains the rogue number in the upper half. Some optimizations of the verifier prevent the actual bypass, so extra care is needed: the comparison must be between two registers, and both branches must be reachable (this is why one random bit is needed). Both branches are still suitable for the bypass. 6. Right shift the original register by 32 bits to pop the rogue number. 7. Use the rogue number as an offset with any pointer. The verifier will believe that the offset is 0, while in reality it's the given number. The fix is similar to the 32-bit BPF_MOV handling in check_alu_op for SCALAR_VALUE. If the spill is narrowing the actual register value, don't keep the ID, make sure it's reset to 0. Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Tested-by: Andrii Nakryiko # Checked veristat delta Acked-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230607123951.558971-2-maxtram95@gmail.com

bpf: Fix mask generation for 32-bit narrow loads of 64-bit fields

2023-05-19T16:58:37Z

A narrow load from a 64-bit context field results in a 64-bit load followed potentially by a 64-bit right-shift and then a bitwise AND operation to extract the relevant data. In the case of a 32-bit access, an immediate mask of 0xffffffff is used to construct a 64-bit BPP_AND operation which then sign-extends the mask value and effectively acts as a glorified no-op. For example: 0: 61 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0) results in the following code generation for a 64-bit field: ldr x7, [x7] // 64-bit load mov x10, #0xffffffffffffffff and x7, x7, x10 Fix the mask generation so that narrow loads always perform a 32-bit AND operation: ldr x7, [x7] // 64-bit load mov w10, #0xffffffff and w7, w7, w10 Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Daniel Borkmann Cc: John Fastabend Cc: Krzesimir Nowak Cc: Andrey Ignatov Acked-by: Yonghong Song Fixes: 31fd85816dbe ("bpf: permits narrower load from bpf program context fields") Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230518102528.1341-1-will@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Add __rcu_read_{lock,unlock} into btf id deny list

2023-04-24T21:16:01Z

The tracing recursion prevention mechanism must be protected by rcu, that leaves __rcu_read_{lock,unlock} unprotected by this mechanism. If we trace them, the recursion will happen. Let's add them into the btf id deny list. When CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is enabled, it can be reproduced with a simple bpf program as such: SEC("fentry/__rcu_read_lock") int fentry_run() { return 0; } Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230424161104.3737-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Disable bpf_refcount_acquire kfunc calls until race conditions are fixed

2023-04-24T21:02:11Z

As reported by Kumar in [0], the shared ownership implementation for BPF programs has some race conditions which need to be addressed before it can safely be used. This patch does so in a minimal way instead of ripping out shared ownership entirely, as proper fixes for the issues raised will follow ASAP, at which point this patch's commit can be reverted to re-enable shared ownership. The patch removes the ability to call bpf_refcount_acquire_impl from BPF programs. Programs can only bump refcount and obtain a new owning reference using this kfunc, so removing the ability to call it effectively disables shared ownership. Instead of changing success / failure expectations for bpf_refcount-related selftests, this patch just disables them from running for now. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d7hyspcow5wtjcmw4fugdgyp3fwhljwuscp3xyut5qnwivyeru@ysdq543otzv2/ Reported-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230424204321.2680232-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

Merge tag 'for-netdev' of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next

2023-04-22T03:32:37Z

Daniel Borkmann says: ==================== pull-request: bpf-next 2023-04-21 We've added 71 non-merge commits during the last 8 day(s) which contain a total of 116 files changed, 13397 insertions(+), 8896 deletions(-). The main changes are: 1) Add a new BPF netfilter program type and minimal support to hook BPF programs to netfilter hooks such as prerouting or forward, from Florian Westphal. 2) Fix race between btf_put and btf_idr walk which caused a deadlock, from Alexei Starovoitov. 3) Second big batch to migrate test_verifier unit tests into test_progs for ease of readability and debugging, from Eduard Zingerman. 4) Add support for refcounted local kptrs to the verifier for allowing shared ownership, useful for adding a node to both the BPF list and rbtree, from Dave Marchevsky. 5) Migrate bpf_for(), bpf_for_each() and bpf_repeat() macros from BPF selftests into libbpf-provided bpf_helpers.h header and improve kfunc handling, from Andrii Nakryiko. 6) Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs needed for archs like s390x, from Ilya Leoshkevich. 7) Support BPF progs under getsockopt with a NULL optval, from Stanislav Fomichev. 8) Improve verifier u32 scalar equality checking in order to enable LLVM transformations which earlier had to be disabled specifically for BPF backend, from Yonghong Song. 9) Extend bpftool's struct_ops object loading to support links, from Kui-Feng Lee. 10) Add xsk selftest follow-up fixes for hugepage allocated umem, from Magnus Karlsson. 11) Support BPF redirects from tc BPF to ifb devices, from Daniel Borkmann. 12) Add BPF support for integer type when accessing variable length arrays, from Feng Zhou. * tag 'for-netdev' of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next: (71 commits) selftests/bpf: verifier/value_ptr_arith converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/value_illegal_alu converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/unpriv converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/subreg converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/spin_lock converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/sock converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/search_pruning converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/runtime_jit converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/regalloc converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/ref_tracking converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/map_ptr_mixing converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/map_in_map converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/lwt converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/loops1 converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/jeq_infer_not_null converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/direct_packet_access converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/d_path converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/ctx converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/btf_ctx_access converted to inline assembly selftests/bpf: verifier/bpf_get_stack converted to inline assembly ... ==================== Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230421211035.9111-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

bpf: minimal support for programs hooked into netfilter framework

2023-04-21T18:34:14Z

This adds minimal support for BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER bpf programs that will be invoked via the NF_HOOK() points in the ip stack. Invocation incurs an indirect call. This is not a necessity: Its possible to add 'DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(nf_progs)' and handle the program invocation with the same method already done for xdp progs. This isn't done here to keep the size of this chunk down. Verifier restricts verdicts to either DROP or ACCEPT. Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230421170300.24115-3-fw@strlen.de Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

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

2023-04-20T23:29:51Z

Adjacent changes: net/mptcp/protocol.h 63740448a32e ("mptcp: fix accept vs worker race") 2a6a870e44dd ("mptcp: stops worker on unaccepted sockets at listener close") ddb1a072f858 ("mptcp: move first subflow allocation at mpc access time") Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

bpf: Fix incorrect verifier pruning due to missing register precision taints

2023-04-19T17:18:18Z

Juan Jose et al reported an issue found via fuzzing where the verifier's pruning logic prematurely marks a program path as safe. Consider the following program: 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 1: (b7) r7 = 0 2: (b7) r8 = 0 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 5: (05) goto pc+0 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 7: (97) r6 %= 1 8: (b7) r9 = 0 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 10: (b7) r6 = 0 11: (b7) r0 = 0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff888103693400 // map_ptr(ks=4,vs=48) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 16: (bf) r2 = r10 17: (07) r2 += -4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 20: (95) exit 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 23: (bf) r1 = r0 24: (0f) r0 += r6 25: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) 26: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +0) = r3 27: (95) exit The verifier treats this as safe, leading to oob read/write access due to an incorrect verifier conclusion: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 ; R6_w=1024 1: (b7) r7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 2: (b7) r8 = 0 ; R8_w=0 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 ; R9_w=-2147483648 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 ; R6_w=scalar() 5: (05) goto pc+0 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 ; R6_w=scalar(umin=18446744071562067969,var_off=(0xffffffff00000000; 0xffffffff)) R9_w=-2147483648 7: (97) r6 %= 1 ; R6_w=scalar() 8: (b7) r9 = 0 ; R9=0 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 ; R6=scalar(umin=1) R9=0 10: (b7) r6 = 0 ; R6_w=0 11: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 last_idx 12 first_idx 9 regs=1 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 13: R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000???? 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff8ad3886c2a00 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 ; R1_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 16: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 17: (07) r2 += -4 ; R2_w=fp-4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 ; R0=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R0=0 20: (95) exit from 19 to 21: R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6=0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 ; R6_w=0 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 ; R6_w=0 23: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 24: (0f) r0 += r6 last_idx 24 first_idx 19 regs=40 stack=0 before 23: (bf) r1 = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 regs=40 stack=0 before 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 regs=40 stack=0 before 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R0_rw=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6_rw=P0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? last_idx 18 first_idx 9 regs=40 stack=0 before 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 regs=40 stack=0 before 17: (07) r2 += -4 regs=40 stack=0 before 16: (bf) r2 = r10 regs=40 stack=0 before 15: (bf) r1 = r4 regs=40 stack=0 before 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff8ad3886c2a00 regs=40 stack=0 before 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 10: (b7) r6 = 0 25: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) ; R0_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=scalar() 26: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +0) = r3 ; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=scalar() 27: (95) exit from 9 to 11: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6=0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 11: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 last_idx 12 first_idx 11 regs=1 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 13: R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000???? 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff8ad3886c2a00 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 ; R1_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 16: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 17: (07) r2 += -4 ; R2_w=fp-4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 frame 0: propagating r6 last_idx 19 first_idx 11 regs=40 stack=0 before 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 regs=40 stack=0 before 17: (07) r2 += -4 regs=40 stack=0 before 16: (bf) r2 = r10 regs=40 stack=0 before 15: (bf) r1 = r4 regs=40 stack=0 before 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff8ad3886c2a00 regs=40 stack=0 before 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_r=P0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 last_idx 9 first_idx 9 regs=40 stack=0 before 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_rw=Pscalar() R7_w=0 R8_w=0 R9_rw=0 R10=fp0 last_idx 8 first_idx 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 8: (b7) r9 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 7: (97) r6 %= 1 regs=40 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=40 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=40 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=40 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 19: safe frame 0: propagating r6 last_idx 9 first_idx 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=40 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=40 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=40 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 from 6 to 9: safe verification time 110 usec stack depth 4 processed 36 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 3 peak_states 3 mark_read 2 The verifier considers this program as safe by mistakenly pruning unsafe code paths. In the above func#0, code lines 0-10 are of interest. In line 0-3 registers r6 to r9 are initialized with known scalar values. In line 4 the register r6 is reset to an unknown scalar given the verifier does not track modulo operations. Due to this, the verifier can also not determine precisely which branches in line 6 and 9 are taken, therefore it needs to explore them both. As can be seen, the verifier starts with exploring the false/fall-through paths first. The 'from 19 to 21' path has both r6=0 and r9=0 and the pointer arithmetic on r0 += r6 is therefore considered safe. Given the arithmetic, r6 is correctly marked for precision tracking where backtracking kicks in where it walks back the current path all the way where r6 was set to 0 in the fall-through branch. Next, the pruning logics pops the path 'from 9 to 11' from the stack. Also here, the state of the registers is the same, that is, r6=0 and r9=0, so that at line 19 the path can be pruned as it is considered safe. It is interesting to note that the conditional in line 9 turned r6 into a more precise state, that is, in the fall-through path at the beginning of line 10, it is R6=scalar(umin=1), and in the branch-taken path (which is analyzed here) at the beginning of line 11, r6 turned into a known const r6=0 as r9=0 prior to that and therefore (unsigned) r6 <= 0 concludes that r6 must be 0 (**): [...] ; R6_w=scalar() 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 ; R6=scalar(umin=1) R9=0 [...] from 9 to 11: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6=0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 [...] The next path is 'from 6 to 9'. The verifier considers the old and current state equivalent, and therefore prunes the search incorrectly. Looking into the two states which are being compared by the pruning logic at line 9, the old state consists of R6_rwD=Pscalar() R9_rwD=0 R10=fp0 and the new state consists of R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_w=scalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R7_w=0 R8_w=0 R9_w=-2147483648 R10=fp0. While r6 had the reg->precise flag correctly set in the old state, r9 did not. Both r6'es are considered as equivalent given the old one is a superset of the current, more precise one, however, r9's actual values (0 vs 0x80000000) mismatch. Given the old r9 did not have reg->precise flag set, the verifier does not consider the register as contributing to the precision state of r6, and therefore it considered both r9 states as equivalent. However, for this specific pruned path (which is also the actual path taken at runtime), register r6 will be 0x400 and r9 0x80000000 when reaching line 21, thus oob-accessing the map. The purpose of precision tracking is to initially mark registers (including spilled ones) as imprecise to help verifier's pruning logic finding equivalent states it can then prune if they don't contribute to the program's safety aspects. For example, if registers are used for pointer arithmetic or to pass constant length to a helper, then the verifier sets reg->precise flag and backtracks the BPF program instruction sequence and chain of verifier states to ensure that the given register or stack slot including their dependencies are marked as precisely tracked scalar. This also includes any other registers and slots that contribute to a tracked state of given registers/stack slot. This backtracking relies on recorded jmp_history and is able to traverse entire chain of parent states. This process ends only when all the necessary registers/slots and their transitive dependencies are marked as precise. The backtrack_insn() is called from the current instruction up to the first instruction, and its purpose is to compute a bitmask of registers and stack slots that need precision tracking in the parent's verifier state. For example, if a current instruction is r6 = r7, then r6 needs precision after this instruction and r7 needs precision before this instruction, that is, in the parent state. Hence for the latter r7 is marked and r6 unmarked. For the class of jmp/jmp32 instructions, backtrack_insn() today only looks at call and exit instructions and for all other conditionals the masks remain as-is. However, in the given situation register r6 has a dependency on r9 (as described above in **), so also that one needs to be marked for precision tracking. In other words, if an imprecise register influences a precise one, then the imprecise register should also be marked precise. Meaning, in the parent state both dest and src register need to be tracked for precision and therefore the marking must be more conservative by setting reg->precise flag for both. The precision propagation needs to cover both for the conditional: if the src reg was marked but not the dst reg and vice versa. After the fix the program is correctly rejected: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 ; R6_w=1024 1: (b7) r7 = 0 ; R7_w=0 2: (b7) r8 = 0 ; R8_w=0 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 ; R9_w=-2147483648 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 ; R6_w=scalar() 5: (05) goto pc+0 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 ; R6_w=scalar(umin=18446744071562067969,var_off=(0xffffffff80000000; 0x7fffffff),u32_min=-2147483648) R9_w=-2147483648 7: (97) r6 %= 1 ; R6_w=scalar() 8: (b7) r9 = 0 ; R9=0 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 ; R6=scalar(umin=1) R9=0 10: (b7) r6 = 0 ; R6_w=0 11: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 last_idx 12 first_idx 9 regs=1 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 13: R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000???? 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 ; R1_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 16: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 17: (07) r2 += -4 ; R2_w=fp-4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 ; R0=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R0=0 20: (95) exit from 19 to 21: R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6=0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 ; R6_w=0 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 ; R6_w=0 23: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 24: (0f) r0 += r6 last_idx 24 first_idx 19 regs=40 stack=0 before 23: (bf) r1 = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 regs=40 stack=0 before 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 regs=40 stack=0 before 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R0_rw=map_value_or_null(id=1,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6_rw=P0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? last_idx 18 first_idx 9 regs=40 stack=0 before 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 regs=40 stack=0 before 17: (07) r2 += -4 regs=40 stack=0 before 16: (bf) r2 = r10 regs=40 stack=0 before 15: (bf) r1 = r4 regs=40 stack=0 before 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 regs=40 stack=0 before 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 10: (b7) r6 = 0 25: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) ; R0_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=scalar() 26: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +0) = r3 ; R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R3_w=scalar() 27: (95) exit from 9 to 11: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6=0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 11: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 last_idx 12 first_idx 11 regs=1 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 13: R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000???? 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 ; R1_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 16: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 17: (07) r2 += -4 ; R2_w=fp-4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 frame 0: propagating r6 last_idx 19 first_idx 11 regs=40 stack=0 before 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 regs=40 stack=0 before 17: (07) r2 += -4 regs=40 stack=0 before 16: (bf) r2 = r10 regs=40 stack=0 before 15: (bf) r1 = r4 regs=40 stack=0 before 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 regs=40 stack=0 before 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_r=P0 R7=0 R8=0 R9=0 R10=fp0 last_idx 9 first_idx 9 regs=40 stack=0 before 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 parent didn't have regs=240 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_rw=Pscalar() R7_w=0 R8_w=0 R9_rw=P0 R10=fp0 last_idx 8 first_idx 0 regs=240 stack=0 before 8: (b7) r9 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 7: (97) r6 %= 1 regs=40 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=240 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=240 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=240 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 19: safe from 6 to 9: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_w=scalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R7_w=0 R8_w=0 R9_w=-2147483648 R10=fp0 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 last_idx 9 first_idx 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=240 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=240 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=240 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 last_idx 9 first_idx 0 regs=200 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=240 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=240 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=240 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 11: R6=scalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R9=-2147483648 11: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 last_idx 12 first_idx 11 regs=1 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 13: R0_w=0 R10=fp0 fp-8=0000???? 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 ; R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 15: (bf) r1 = r4 ; R1_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R4_w=map_ptr(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 16: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 17: (07) r2 += -4 ; R2_w=fp-4 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 ; R0_w=map_value_or_null(id=3,off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R0_w=0 20: (95) exit from 19 to 21: R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6=scalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R7=0 R8=0 R9=-2147483648 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 ; R6_w=scalar(umax=18014398507384832,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fffffffffffff)) 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 ; R6_w=scalar(smax=9223372036854767616,umax=18446744073709543424,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffffffffe000),s32_max=2147475456,u32_max=-8192) 23: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R1_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) 24: (0f) r0 += r6 last_idx 24 first_idx 21 regs=40 stack=0 before 23: (bf) r1 = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 22: (27) r6 *= 8192 regs=40 stack=0 before 21: (77) r6 >>= 10 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R0_rw=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=48,imm=0) R6_r=Pscalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R7=0 R8=0 R9=-2147483648 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? last_idx 19 first_idx 11 regs=40 stack=0 before 19: (55) if r0 != 0x0 goto pc+1 regs=40 stack=0 before 18: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 regs=40 stack=0 before 17: (07) r2 += -4 regs=40 stack=0 before 16: (bf) r2 = r10 regs=40 stack=0 before 15: (bf) r1 = r4 regs=40 stack=0 before 13: (18) r4 = 0xffff9290dc5bfe00 regs=40 stack=0 before 12: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r0 regs=40 stack=0 before 11: (b7) r0 = 0 parent didn't have regs=40 stack=0 marks: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R6_rw=Pscalar(umax=18446744071562067968) R7_w=0 R8_w=0 R9_w=-2147483648 R10=fp0 last_idx 9 first_idx 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 9: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+1 regs=240 stack=0 before 6: (bd) if r6 <= r9 goto pc+2 regs=240 stack=0 before 5: (05) goto pc+0 regs=240 stack=0 before 4: (97) r6 %= 1025 regs=240 stack=0 before 3: (b7) r9 = -2147483648 regs=40 stack=0 before 2: (b7) r8 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 1: (b7) r7 = 0 regs=40 stack=0 before 0: (b7) r6 = 1024 math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed verification time 886 usec stack depth 4 processed 49 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 1 total_states 5 peak_states 5 mark_read 2 Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking") Reported-by: Juan Jose Lopez Jaimez Reported-by: Meador Inge Reported-by: Simon Scannell Reported-by: Nenad Stojanovski Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko Reviewed-by: John Fastabend Reviewed-by: Juan Jose Lopez Jaimez Reviewed-by: Meador Inge Reviewed-by: Simon Scannell

bpf: Improve verifier u32 scalar equality checking

2023-04-17T22:50:02Z

In [1], I tried to remove bpf-specific codes to prevent certain llvm optimizations, and add llvm TTI (target transform info) hooks to prevent those optimizations. During this process, I found if I enable llvm SimplifyCFG:shouldFoldTwoEntryPHINode transformation, I will hit the following verification failure with selftests: ... 8: (18) r1 = 0xffffc900001b2230 ; R1_w=map_value(off=560,ks=4,vs=564,imm=0) 10: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0) ; R1_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (skb->tstamp == EGRESS_ENDHOST_MAGIC) 11: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r6 +152) ; R2_w=scalar() R6=ctx(off=0,imm=0) ; if (skb->tstamp == EGRESS_ENDHOST_MAGIC) 12: (55) if r2 != 0xb9fbeef goto pc+10 ; R2_w=195018479 13: (bc) w2 = w1 ; R1_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (test < __NR_TESTS) 14: (a6) if w1 < 0x9 goto pc+1 16: R0=2 R1_w=scalar(umax=8,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) R2_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R6=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 ; 16: (27) r2 *= 28 ; R2_w=scalar(umax=120259084260,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffffc),s32_max=2147483644,u32_max=-4) 17: (18) r3 = 0xffffc900001b2118 ; R3_w=map_value(off=280,ks=4,vs=564,imm=0) 19: (0f) r3 += r2 ; R2_w=scalar(umax=120259084260,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffffc),s32_max=2147483644,u32_max=-4) R3_w=map_value(off=280,ks=4,vs=564,umax=120259084260,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ffffffffc),s32_max=2147483644,u32_max=-4) 20: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r3 +0) R3 unbounded memory access, make sure to bounds check any such access processed 97 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 1 total_states 10 peak_states 10 mark_read 6 -- END PROG LOAD LOG -- libbpf: prog 'ingress_fwdns_prio100': failed to load: -13 libbpf: failed to load object 'test_tc_dtime' libbpf: failed to load BPF skeleton 'test_tc_dtime': -13 ... At insn 14, with condition 'w1 < 9', register r1 is changed from an arbitrary u32 value to `scalar(umax=8,var_off=(0x0; 0xf))`. Register r2, however, remains as an arbitrary u32 value. Current verifier won't claim r1/r2 equality if the previous mov is alu32 ('w2 = w1'). If r1 upper 32bit value is not 0, we indeed cannot clamin r1/r2 equality after 'w2 = w1'. But in this particular case, we know r1 upper 32bit value is 0, so it is safe to claim r1/r2 equality. This patch exactly did this. For a 32bit subreg mov, if the src register upper 32bit is 0, it is okay to claim equality between src and dst registers. With this patch, the above verification sequence becomes ... 8: (18) r1 = 0xffffc9000048e230 ; R1_w=map_value(off=560,ks=4,vs=564,imm=0) 10: (61) r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0) ; R1_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (skb->tstamp == EGRESS_ENDHOST_MAGIC) 11: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r6 +152) ; R2_w=scalar() R6=ctx(off=0,imm=0) ; if (skb->tstamp == EGRESS_ENDHOST_MAGIC) 12: (55) if r2 != 0xb9fbeef goto pc+10 ; R2_w=195018479 13: (bc) w2 = w1 ; R1_w=scalar(id=6,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R2_w=scalar(id=6,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ; if (test < __NR_TESTS) 14: (a6) if w1 < 0x9 goto pc+1 ; R1_w=scalar(id=6,umin=9,umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) ... from 14 to 16: R0=2 R1_w=scalar(id=6,umax=8,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) R2_w=scalar(id=6,umax=8,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) R6=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 16: (27) r2 *= 28 ; R2_w=scalar(umax=224,var_off=(0x0; 0xfc)) 17: (18) r3 = 0xffffc9000048e118 ; R3_w=map_value(off=280,ks=4,vs=564,imm=0) 19: (0f) r3 += r2 20: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r3 +0) ; R2_w=scalar(umax=4294967295,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff)) R3_w=map_value(off=280,ks=4,vs=564,umax=224,var_off=(0x0; 0xfc),s32_max=252,u32_max=252) ... and eventually the bpf program can be verified successfully. [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D147968 Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230417222134.359714-1-yhs@fb.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov