linux-stable.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v4.14.78

bpf: 32-bit RSH verification must truncate input before the ALU op

2018-10-10T06:54:22+00:00

commit b799207e1e1816b09e7a5920fbb2d5fcf6edd681 upstream.

When I wrote commit 468f6eafa6c4 ("bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification"), I
assumed that, in order to emulate 64-bit arithmetic with 32-bit logic, it
is sufficient to just truncate the output to 32 bits; and so I just moved
the register size coercion that used to be at the start of the function to
the end of the function.

That assumption is true for almost every op, but not for 32-bit right
shifts, because those can propagate information towards the least
significant bit. Fix it by always truncating inputs for 32-bit ops to 32
bits.

Also get rid of the coerce_reg_to_size() after the ALU op, since that has
no effect.

Fixes: 468f6eafa6c4 ("bpf: fix 32-bit ALU op verification")
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix references to free_bpf_prog_info() in comments

2018-08-03T05:50:37+00:00

[ Upstream commit ab7f5bf0928be2f148d000a6eaa6c0a36e74750e ]

Comments in the verifier refer to free_bpf_prog_info() which
seems to have never existed in tree.  Replace it with
free_used_maps().

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski 
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory

2018-03-11T15:23:22+00:00

[ upstream commit ca36960211eb228bcbc7aaebfa0d027368a94c60 ]

The requirements around atomic_add() / atomic64_add() resp. their
JIT implementations differ across architectures. E.g. while x86_64
seems just fine with BPF's xadd on unaligned memory, on arm64 it
triggers via interpreter but also JIT the following crash:

  [  830.864985] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffff8097d7ed6703
  [...]
  [  830.916161] Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] SMP
  [  830.984755] CPU: 37 PID: 2788 Comm: test_verifier Not tainted 4.16.0-rc2+ #8
  [  830.991790] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 /BC11SPCD, BIOS 1.29 07/17/2017
  [  830.998998] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO)
  [  831.003793] pc : __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18
  [  831.008055] lr : ___bpf_prog_run+0x1198/0x1588
  [  831.012485] sp : ffff00001ccabc20
  [  831.015786] x29: ffff00001ccabc20 x28: ffff8017d56a0f00
  [  831.021087] x27: 0000000000000001 x26: 0000000000000000
  [  831.026387] x25: 000000c168d9db98 x24: 0000000000000000
  [  831.031686] x23: ffff000008203878 x22: ffff000009488000
  [  831.036986] x21: ffff000008b14e28 x20: ffff00001ccabcb0
  [  831.042286] x19: ffff0000097b5080 x18: 0000000000000a03
  [  831.047585] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
  [  831.052885] x15: 0000ffffaeca8000 x14: 0000000000000000
  [  831.058184] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
  [  831.063484] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000000
  [  831.068783] x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000
  [  831.074083] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000580d428000000
  [  831.079383] x5 : 0000000000000018 x4 : 0000000000000000
  [  831.084682] x3 : ffff00001ccabcb0 x2 : 0000000000000001
  [  831.089982] x1 : ffff8097d7ed6703 x0 : 0000000000000001
  [  831.095282] Process test_verifier (pid: 2788, stack limit = 0x0000000018370044)
  [  831.102577] Call trace:
  [  831.105012]  __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18
  [  831.108923]  __bpf_prog_run32+0x4c/0x70
  [  831.112748]  bpf_test_run+0x78/0xf8
  [  831.116224]  bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xb4/0x120
  [  831.120567]  SyS_bpf+0x77c/0x1110
  [  831.123873]  el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34
  [  831.127437] Code: 97fffe97 17ffffec 00000000 f9800031 (885f7c31)

Reason for this is because memory is required to be aligned. In
case of BPF, we always enforce alignment in terms of stack access,
but not when accessing map values or packet data when the underlying
arch (e.g. arm64) has CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set.

xadd on packet data that is local to us anyway is just wrong, so
forbid this case entirely. The only place where xadd makes sense in
fact are map values; xadd on stack is wrong as well, but it's been
around for much longer. Specifically enforce strict alignment in case
of xadd, so that we handle this case generically and avoid such crashes
in the first place.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments

2018-02-25T10:07:45+00:00

commit 6f16101e6a8b4324c36e58a29d9e0dbb287cdedb upstream.

syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with
the following:

  0: (b7) r0 = 0
  1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0
   R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  2: (1f) r0 -= r1
   R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
  verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds

What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value
are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle
test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false
path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when
ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the
internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val
for the known constant.

For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max()
and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds)
demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime.

In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the
existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection
is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the
WARN() is not necessary either.

We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or
umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds
smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there
may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle
this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with
such kind of src reg.

Reported-by: syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd

2018-01-31T13:03:50+00:00

[ upstream commit f37a8cb84cce18762e8f86a70bd6a49a66ab964c ]

Alexei found that verifier does not reject stores into context
via BPF_ST instead of BPF_STX. And while looking at it, we
also should not allow XADD variant of BPF_STX.

The context rewriter is only assuming either BPF_LDX_MEM- or
BPF_STX_MEM-type operations, thus reject anything other than
that so that assumptions in the rewriter properly hold. Add
test cases as well for BPF selftests.

Fixes: d691f9e8d440 ("bpf: allow programs to write to certain skb fields")
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix 32-bit divide by zero

2018-01-31T13:03:50+00:00

[ upstream commit 68fda450a7df51cff9e5a4d4a4d9d0d5f2589153 ]

due to some JITs doing if (src_reg == 0) check in 64-bit mode
for div/mod operations mask upper 32-bits of src register
before doing the check

Fixes: 622582786c9e ("net: filter: x86: internal BPF JIT")
Fixes: 7a12b5031c6b ("sparc64: Add eBPF JIT.")
Reported-by: syzbot+48340bb518e88849e2e3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: arsh is not supported in 32 bit alu thus reject it

2018-01-17T08:45:25+00:00

commit 7891a87efc7116590eaba57acc3c422487802c6f upstream.

The following snippet was throwing an 'unknown opcode cc' warning
in BPF interpreter:

  0: (18) r0 = 0x0
  2: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r0
  3: (cc) (u32) r0 s>>= (u32) r0
  4: (95) exit

Although a number of JITs do support BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_{K,X}
generation, not all of them do and interpreter does neither. We can
leave existing ones and implement it later in bpf-next for the
remaining ones, but reject this properly in verifier for the time
being.

Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
Reported-by: syzbot+93c4904c5c70348a6890@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation

2018-01-17T08:45:25+00:00

commit b2157399cc9898260d6031c5bfe45fe137c1fbe7 upstream.

Under speculation, CPUs may mis-predict branches in bounds checks. Thus,
memory accesses under a bounds check may be speculated even if the
bounds check fails, providing a primitive for building a side channel.

To avoid leaking kernel data round up array-based maps and mask the index
after bounds check, so speculated load with out of bounds index will load
either valid value from the array or zero from the padded area.

Unconditionally mask index for all array types even when max_entries
are not rounded to power of 2 for root user.
When map is created by unpriv user generate a sequence of bpf insns
that includes AND operation to make sure that JITed code includes
the same 'index & index_mask' operation.

If prog_array map is created by unpriv user replace
  bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index);
with
  if (index >= max_entries) {
    index &= map->index_mask;
    bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index);
  }
(along with roundup to power 2) to prevent out-of-bounds speculation.
There is secondary redundant 'if (index >= max_entries)' in the interpreter
and in all JITs, but they can be optimized later if necessary.

Other array-like maps (cpumap, devmap, sockmap, perf_event_array, cgroup_array)
cannot be used by unpriv, so no changes there.

That fixes bpf side of "Variant 1: bounds check bypass (CVE-2017-5753)" on
all architectures with and without JIT.

v2->v3:
Daniel noticed that attack potentially can be crafted via syscall commands
without loading the program, so add masking to those paths as well.

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Acked-by: John Fastabend 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Cc: Jiri Slaby 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix integer overflows

2017-12-25T13:26:33+00:00

From: Alexei Starovoitov 

[ Upstream commit bb7f0f989ca7de1153bd128a40a71709e339fa03 ]

There were various issues related to the limited size of integers used in
the verifier:
 - `off + size` overflow in __check_map_access()
 - `off + reg->off` overflow in check_mem_access()
 - `off + reg->var_off.value` overflow or 32-bit truncation of
   `reg->var_off.value` in check_mem_access()
 - 32-bit truncation in check_stack_boundary()

Make sure that any integer math cannot overflow by not allowing
pointer math with large values.

Also reduce the scope of "scalar op scalar" tracking.

Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
Reported-by: Jann Horn 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: don't prune branches when a scalar is replaced with a pointer

2017-12-25T13:26:32+00:00

From: Jann Horn 

[ Upstream commit 179d1c5602997fef5a940c6ddcf31212cbfebd14 ]

This could be made safe by passing through a reference to env and checking
for env->allow_ptr_leaks, but it would only work one way and is probably
not worth the hassle - not doing it will not directly lead to program
rejection.

Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking")
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn 
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman