[ Upstream commit 434247637c66e1be2bc71a9987d4c3f0d8672387 ] The kzmalloc call in bpf_check can fail when memory is very fragmented, which in turn can lead to an OOM kill. Use kvzmalloc to fall back to vmalloc when memory is too fragmented to allocate an order 3 sized bpf verifier environment. Admittedly this is not a very common case, and only happens on systems where memory has already been squeezed close to the limit, but this does not seem like much of a hot path, and it's a simple enough fix. Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241008170735.16766766@imladris.surriel.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 291d044fd51f8484066300ee42afecf8c8db7b3a upstream.
BPF_END and BPF_NEG has a different specification for the source bit in
the opcode compared to other ALU/ALU64 instructions, and is either
reserved or use to specify the byte swap endianness. In both cases the
source bit does not encode source operand location, and src_reg is a
reserved field.
backtrack_insn() currently does not differentiate BPF_END and BPF_NEG
from other ALU/ALU64 instructions, which leads to r0 being incorrectly
marked as precise when processing BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END
instructions. This commit teaches backtrack_insn() to correctly mark
precision for such case.
While precise tracking of BPF_NEG and other BPF_END instructions are
correct and does not need fixing, this commit opt to process all BPF_NEG
and BPF_END instructions within the same if-clause to better align with
current convention used in the verifier (e.g. check_alu_op).
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <mmahmoud@redhat.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87jzrrwptf.fsf@toke.dk
Tested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102053913.12004-2-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 0613d8ca9ab382caabe9ed2dceb429e9781e443f upstream.
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 <ast@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Krzesimir Nowak <krzesimir@kinvolk.io>
Cc: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Fixes: 31fd85816dbe ("bpf: permits narrower load from bpf program context fields")
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230518102528.1341-1-will@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 71b547f561247897a0a14f3082730156c0533fed ]
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 <jjlopezjaimez@google.com>
Reported-by: Meador Inge <meadori@google.com>
Reported-by: Simon Scannell <simonscannell@google.com>
Reported-by: Nenad Stojanovski <thenenadx@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Co-developed-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Jose Lopez Jaimez <jjlopezjaimez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Meador Inge <meadori@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Scannell <simonscannell@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit e4f4db47794c9f474b184ee1418f42e6a07412b6 ]
To mitigate Spectre v4, 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to
insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation") inserts lfence
instructions after 1) initializing a stack slot and 2) spilling a
pointer to the stack.
However, this does not cover cases where a stack slot is first
initialized with a pointer (subject to sanitization) but then
overwritten with a scalar (not subject to sanitization because
the slot was already initialized). In this case, the second write
may be subject to speculative store bypass (SSB) creating a
speculative pointer-as-scalar type confusion. This allows the
program to subsequently leak the numerical pointer value using,
for example, a branch-based cache side channel.
To fix this, also sanitize scalars if they write a stack slot
that previously contained a pointer. Assuming that pointer-spills
are only generated by LLVM on register-pressure, the performance
impact on most real-world BPF programs should be small.
The following unprivileged BPF bytecode drafts a minimal exploit
and the mitigation:
[...]
// r6 = 0 or 1 (skalar, unknown user input)
// r7 = accessible ptr for side channel
// r10 = frame pointer (fp), to be leaked
//
r9 = r10 # fp alias to encourage ssb
*(u64 *)(r9 - 8) = r10 // fp[-8] = ptr, to be leaked
// lfence added here because of pointer spill to stack.
//
// Ommitted: Dummy bpf_ringbuf_output() here to train alias predictor
// for no r9-r10 dependency.
//
*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r6 // fp[-8] = scalar, overwrites ptr
// 2039f26f3aca: no lfence added because stack slot was not STACK_INVALID,
// store may be subject to SSB
//
// fix: also add an lfence when the slot contained a ptr
//
r8 = *(u64 *)(r9 - 8)
// r8 = architecturally a scalar, speculatively a ptr
//
// leak ptr using branch-based cache side channel:
r8 &= 1 // choose bit to leak
if r8 == 0 goto SLOW // no mispredict
// architecturally dead code if input r6 is 0,
// only executes speculatively iff ptr bit is 1
r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 + 0) # encode bit in cache (0: slow, 1: fast)
SLOW:
[...]
After running this, the program can time the access to *(r7 + 0) to
determine whether the chosen pointer bit was 0 or 1. Repeat this 64
times to recover the whole address on amd64.
In summary, sanitization can only be skipped if one scalar is
overwritten with another scalar. Scalar-confusion due to speculative
store bypass can not lead to invalid accesses because the pointer
bounds deducted during verification are enforced using branchless
logic. See 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on
pointer arithmetic") for details.
Do not make the mitigation depend on !env->allow_{uninit_stack,ptr_leaks}
because speculative leaks are likely unexpected if these were enabled.
For example, leaking the address to a protected log file may be acceptable
while disabling the mitigation might unintentionally leak the address
into the cached-state of a map that is accessible to unprivileged
processes.
Fixes: 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation")
Signed-off-by: Luis Gerhorst <gerhorst@cs.fau.de>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Henriette Hofmeier <henriette.hofmeier@rub.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/edc95bad-aada-9cfc-ffe2-fa9bb206583c@cs.fau.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230109150544.41465-1-gerhorst@cs.fau.de
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit a3b666bfa9c9edc05bca62a87abafe0936bd7f97 ]
When processing ALU/ALU64 operations (apart from BPF_MOV, which is
handled correctly already; and BPF_NEG and BPF_END are special and don't
have source register), if destination register is already marked
precise, this causes problem with potentially missing precision tracking
for the source register. E.g., when we have r1 >>= r5 and r1 is marked
precise, but r5 isn't, this will lead to r5 staying as imprecise. This
is due to the precision backtracking logic stopping early when it sees
r1 is already marked precise. If r1 wasn't precise, we'd keep
backtracking and would add r5 to the set of registers that need to be
marked precise. So there is a discrepancy here which can lead to invalid
and incompatible states matched due to lack of precision marking on r5.
If r1 wasn't precise, precision backtracking would correctly mark both
r1 and r5 as precise.
This is simple to fix, though. During the forward instruction simulation
pass, for arithmetic operations of `scalar <op>= scalar` form (where
<op> is ALU or ALU64 operations), if destination register is already
precise, mark source register as precise. This applies only when both
involved registers are SCALARs. `ptr += scalar` and `scalar += ptr`
cases are already handled correctly.
This does have (negative) effect on some selftest programs and few
Cilium programs. ~/baseline-tmp-results.csv are veristat results with
this patch, while ~/baseline-results.csv is without it. See post
scriptum for instructions on how to make Cilium programs testable with
veristat. Correctness has a price.
$ ./veristat -C -e file,prog,insns,states ~/baseline-results.csv ~/baseline-tmp-results.csv | grep -v '+0'
File Program Total insns (A) Total insns (B) Total insns (DIFF) Total states (A) Total states (B) Total states (DIFF)
----------------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------
bpf_cubic.bpf.linked1.o bpf_cubic_cong_avoid 997 1700 +703 (+70.51%) 62 90 +28 (+45.16%)
test_l4lb.bpf.linked1.o balancer_ingress 4559 5469 +910 (+19.96%) 118 126 +8 (+6.78%)
----------------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------
$ ./veristat -C -e file,prog,verdict,insns,states ~/baseline-results-cilium.csv ~/baseline-tmp-results-cilium.csv | grep -v '+0'
File Program Total insns (A) Total insns (B) Total insns (DIFF) Total states (A) Total states (B) Total states (DIFF)
------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------
bpf_host.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4448 5261 +813 (+18.28%) 234 247 +13 (+5.56%)
bpf_host.o tail_nodeport_nat_ipv6_egress 3396 3446 +50 (+1.47%) 201 203 +2 (+1.00%)
bpf_lxc.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4448 5261 +813 (+18.28%) 234 247 +13 (+5.56%)
bpf_overlay.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 4448 5261 +813 (+18.28%) 234 247 +13 (+5.56%)
bpf_xdp.o tail_lb_ipv4 71736 73442 +1706 (+2.38%) 4295 4370 +75 (+1.75%)
------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------
P.S. To make Cilium ([0]) programs libbpf-compatible and thus
veristat-loadable, apply changes from topmost commit in [1], which does
minimal changes to Cilium source code, mostly around SEC() annotations
and BPF map definitions.
[0] https://github.com/cilium/cilium/
[1] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium/commits/libbpf-friendliness
Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221104163649.121784-2-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 294f2fc6da27620a506e6c050241655459ccd6bd upstream. Currently, for all op verification we call __red_deduce_bounds() and __red_bound_offset() but we only call __update_reg_bounds() in bitwise ops. However, we could benefit from calling __update_reg_bounds() in BPF_ADD, BPF_SUB, and BPF_MUL cases as well. For example, a register with state 'R1_w=invP0' when we subtract from it, w1 -= 2 Before coerce we will now have an smin_value=S64_MIN, smax_value=U64_MAX and unsigned bounds umin_value=0, umax_value=U64_MAX. These will then be clamped to S32_MIN, U32_MAX values by coerce in the case of alu32 op as done in above example. However tnum will be a constant because the ALU op is done on a constant. Without update_reg_bounds() we have a scenario where tnum is a const but our unsigned bounds do not reflect this. By calling update_reg_bounds after coerce to 32bit we further refine the umin_value to U64_MAX in the alu64 case or U32_MAX in the alu32 case above. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158507151689.15666.566796274289413203.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 2fa7d94afc1afbb4d702760c058dc2d7ed30f226 upstream.
The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that
appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error,
arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts
from the verifier, for example (pseudocode):
// 1. Passes the verifier:
if (data + 8 > data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
// 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass):
if (data + 7 >= data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong
direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code
starts failing in the verifier:
// 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1.
if (data + 8 >= data_end)
return early
read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7]
The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into
off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests
written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however,
they should be accepted.
This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the
right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the
one that should actually fail.
Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns")
Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests")
Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@nvidia.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 0e6491b559704da720f6da09dd0a52c4df44c514 ]
Commit 7661809d493b ("mm: don't allow oversized kvmalloc() calls") add the
oversize check. When the allocation is larger than what kmalloc() supports,
the following warning triggered:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 8408 at mm/util.c:597 kvmalloc_node+0x108/0x110 mm/util.c:597
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 8408 Comm: syz-executor221 Not tainted 5.14.0-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
RIP: 0010:kvmalloc_node+0x108/0x110 mm/util.c:597
Call Trace:
kvmalloc include/linux/mm.h:806 [inline]
kvmalloc_array include/linux/mm.h:824 [inline]
kvcalloc include/linux/mm.h:829 [inline]
check_btf_line kernel/bpf/verifier.c:9925 [inline]
check_btf_info kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10049 [inline]
bpf_check+0xd634/0x150d0 kernel/bpf/verifier.c:13759
bpf_prog_load kernel/bpf/syscall.c:2301 [inline]
__sys_bpf+0x11181/0x126e0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4587
__do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4691 [inline]
__se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4689 [inline]
__x64_sys_bpf+0x78/0x90 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4689
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
Reported-by: syzbot+f3e749d4c662818ae439@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210911005557.45518-1-cuibixuan@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit e042aa532c84d18ff13291d00620502ce7a38dda upstream.
In 7fedb63a8307 ("bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask") we
narrowed the offset mask for unprivileged pointer arithmetic in order to
mitigate a corner case where in the speculative domain it is possible to
advance, for example, the map value pointer by up to value_size-1 out-of-
bounds in order to leak kernel memory via side-channel to user space.
The verifier's state pruning for scalars leaves one corner case open
where in the first verification path R_x holds an unknown scalar with an
aux->alu_limit of e.g. 7, and in a second verification path that same
register R_x, here denoted as R_x', holds an unknown scalar which has
tighter bounds and would thus satisfy range_within(R_x, R_x') as well as
tnum_in(R_x, R_x') for state pruning, yielding an aux->alu_limit of 3:
Given the second path fits the register constraints for pruning, the final
generated mask from aux->alu_limit will remain at 7. While technically
not wrong for the non-speculative domain, it would however be possible
to craft similar cases where the mask would be too wide as in 7fedb63a8307.
One way to fix it is to detect the presence of unknown scalar map pointer
arithmetic and force a deeper search on unknown scalars to ensure that
we do not run into a masking mismatch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[OP: adjusted context in include/linux/bpf_verifier.h for 5.4]
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>