linux-stable.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v6.2.13

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

2023-04-26T12:29:58+00:00

[ 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 
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 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix partial dynptr stack slot reads/writes

2023-03-10T08:28:10+00:00

[ Upstream commit ef8fc7a07c0e161841779d6fe3f6acd5a05c547c ]

Currently, while reads are disallowed for dynptr stack slots, writes are
not. Reads don't work from both direct access and helpers, while writes
do work in both cases, but have the effect of overwriting the slot_type.

While this is fine, handling for a few edge cases is missing. Firstly,
a user can overwrite the stack slots of dynptr partially.

Consider the following layout:
spi: [d][d][?]
      2  1  0

First slot is at spi 2, second at spi 1.
Now, do a write of 1 to 8 bytes for spi 1.

This will essentially either write STACK_MISC for all slot_types or
STACK_MISC and STACK_ZERO (in case of size < BPF_REG_SIZE partial write
of zeroes). The end result is that slot is scrubbed.

Now, the layout is:
spi: [d][m][?]
      2  1  0

Suppose if user initializes spi = 1 as dynptr.
We get:
spi: [d][d][d]
      2  1  0

But this time, both spi 2 and spi 1 have first_slot = true.

Now, when passing spi 2 to dynptr helper, it will consider it as
initialized as it does not check whether second slot has first_slot ==
false. And spi 1 should already work as normal.

This effectively replaced size + offset of first dynptr, hence allowing
invalid OOB reads and writes.

Make a few changes to protect against this:
When writing to PTR_TO_STACK using BPF insns, when we touch spi of a
STACK_DYNPTR type, mark both first and second slot (regardless of which
slot we touch) as STACK_INVALID. Reads are already prevented.

Second, prevent writing	to stack memory from helpers if the range may
contain any STACK_DYNPTR slots. Reads are already prevented.

For helpers, we cannot allow it to destroy dynptrs from the writes as
depending on arguments, helper may take uninit_mem and dynptr both at
the same time. This would mean that helper may write to uninit_mem
before it reads the dynptr, which would be bad.

PTR_TO_MEM: [?????dd]

Depending on the code inside the helper, it may end up overwriting the
dynptr contents first and then read those as the dynptr argument.

Verifier would only simulate destruction when it does byte by byte
access simulation in check_helper_call for meta.access_size, and
fail to catch this case, as it happens after argument checks.

The same would need to be done for any other non-trivial objects created
on the stack in the future, such as bpf_list_head on stack, or
bpf_rb_root on stack.

A common misunderstanding in the current code is that MEM_UNINIT means
writes, but note that writes may also be performed even without
MEM_UNINIT in case of helpers, in that case the code after handling meta
&& meta->raw_mode will complain when it sees STACK_DYNPTR. So that
invalid read case also covers writes to potential STACK_DYNPTR slots.
The only loophole was in case of meta->raw_mode which simulated writes
through instructions which could overwrite them.

A future series sequenced after this will focus on the clean up of
helper access checks and bugs around that.

Fixes: 97e03f521050 ("bpf: Add verifier support for dynptrs")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230121002241.2113993-4-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix missing var_off check for ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR

2023-03-10T08:28:10+00:00

[ Upstream commit 79168a669d8125453c8a271115f1ffd4294e61f6 ]

Currently, the dynptr function is not checking the variable offset part
of PTR_TO_STACK that it needs to check. The fixed offset is considered
when computing the stack pointer index, but if the variable offset was
not a constant (such that it could not be accumulated in reg->off), we
will end up a discrepency where runtime pointer does not point to the
actual stack slot we mark as STACK_DYNPTR.

It is impossible to precisely track dynptr state when variable offset is
not constant, hence, just like bpf_timer, kptr, bpf_spin_lock, etc.
simply reject the case where reg->var_off is not constant. Then,
consider both reg->off and reg->var_off.value when computing the stack
pointer index.

A new helper dynptr_get_spi is introduced to hide over these details
since the dynptr needs to be located in multiple places outside the
process_dynptr_func checks, hence once we know it's a PTR_TO_STACK, we
need to enforce these checks in all places.

Note that it is disallowed for unprivileged users to have a non-constant
var_off, so this problem should only be possible to trigger from
programs having CAP_PERFMON. However, its effects can vary.

Without the fix, it is possible to replace the contents of the dynptr
arbitrarily by making verifier mark different stack slots than actual
location and then doing writes to the actual stack address of dynptr at
runtime.

Fixes: 97e03f521050 ("bpf: Add verifier support for dynptrs")
Acked-by: Joanne Koong 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230121002241.2113993-3-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix state pruning for STACK_DYNPTR stack slots

2023-03-10T08:28:10+00:00

[ Upstream commit d6fefa1105dacc8a742cdcf2f4bfb501c9e61349 ]

The root of the problem is missing liveness marking for STACK_DYNPTR
slots. This leads to all kinds of problems inside stacksafe.

The verifier by default inside stacksafe ignores spilled_ptr in stack
slots which do not have REG_LIVE_READ marks. Since this is being checked
in the 'old' explored state, it must have already done clean_live_states
for this old bpf_func_state. Hence, it won't be receiving any more
liveness marks from to be explored insns (it has received REG_LIVE_DONE
marking from liveness point of view).

What this means is that verifier considers that it's safe to not compare
the stack slot if was never read by children states. While liveness
marks are usually propagated correctly following the parentage chain for
spilled registers (SCALAR_VALUE and PTR_* types), the same is not the
case for STACK_DYNPTR.

clean_live_states hence simply rewrites these stack slots to the type
STACK_INVALID since it sees no REG_LIVE_READ marks.

The end result is that we will never see STACK_DYNPTR slots in explored
state. Even if verifier was conservatively matching !REG_LIVE_READ
slots, very next check continuing the stacksafe loop on seeing
STACK_INVALID would again prevent further checks.

Now as long as verifier stores an explored state which we can compare to
when reaching a pruning point, we can abuse this bug to make verifier
prune search for obviously unsafe paths using STACK_DYNPTR slots
thinking they are never used hence safe.

Doing this in unprivileged mode is a bit challenging. add_new_state is
only set when seeing BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ (which requires privileges)
or when jmps_processed difference is >= 2 and insn_processed difference
is >= 8. So coming up with the unprivileged case requires a little more
work, but it is still totally possible. The test case being discussed
below triggers the heuristic even in unprivileged mode.

However, it no longer works since commit
8addbfc7b308 ("bpf: Gate dynptr API behind CAP_BPF").

Let's try to study the test step by step.

Consider the following program (C style BPF ASM):

0  r0 = 0;
1  r6 = &ringbuf_map;
3  r1 = r6;
4  r2 = 8;
5  r3 = 0;
6  r4 = r10;
7  r4 -= -16;
8  call bpf_ringbuf_reserve_dynptr;
9  if r0 == 0 goto pc+1;
10 goto pc+1;
11 *(r10 - 16) = 0xeB9F;
12 r1 = r10;
13 r1 -= -16;
14 r2 = 0;
15 call bpf_ringbuf_discard_dynptr;
16 r0 = 0;
17 exit;

We know that insn 12 will be a pruning point, hence if we force
add_new_state for it, it will first verify the following path as
safe in straight line exploration:
0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -> 10 -> (12) 13 14 15 16 17

Then, when we arrive at insn 12 from the following path:
0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -> 11 (12)

We will find a state that has been verified as safe already at insn 12.
Since register state is same at this point, regsafe will pass. Next, in
stacksafe, for spi = 0 and spi = 1 (location of our dynptr) is skipped
seeing !REG_LIVE_READ. The rest matches, so stacksafe returns true.
Next, refsafe is also true as reference state is unchanged in both
states.

The states are considered equivalent and search is pruned.

Hence, we are able to construct a dynptr with arbitrary contents and use
the dynptr API to operate on this arbitrary pointer and arbitrary size +
offset.

To fix this, first define a mark_dynptr_read function that propagates
liveness marks whenever a valid initialized dynptr is accessed by dynptr
helpers. REG_LIVE_WRITTEN is marked whenever we initialize an
uninitialized dynptr. This is done in mark_stack_slots_dynptr. It allows
screening off mark_reg_read and not propagating marks upwards from that
point.

This ensures that we either set REG_LIVE_READ64 on both dynptr slots, or
none, so clean_live_states either sets both slots to STACK_INVALID or
none of them. This is the invariant the checks inside stacksafe rely on.

Next, do a complete comparison of both stack slots whenever they have
STACK_DYNPTR. Compare the dynptr type stored in the spilled_ptr, and
also whether both form the same first_slot. Only then is the later path
safe.

Fixes: 97e03f521050 ("bpf: Add verifier support for dynptrs")
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230121002241.2113993-2-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix to preserve reg parent/live fields when copying range info

2023-01-19T23:19:23+00:00

Register range information is copied in several places. The intent is
to transfer range/id information from one register/stack spill to
another. Currently this is done using direct register assignment, e.g.:

static void find_equal_scalars(..., struct bpf_reg_state *known_reg)
{
	...
	struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
	...
			*reg = *known_reg;
	...
}

However, such assignments also copy the following bpf_reg_state fields:

struct bpf_reg_state {
	...
	struct bpf_reg_state *parent;
	...
	enum bpf_reg_liveness live;
	...
};

Copying of these fields is accidental and incorrect, as could be
demonstrated by the following example:

     0: call ktime_get_ns()
     1: r6 = r0
     2: call ktime_get_ns()
     3: r7 = r0
     4: if r0 > r6 goto +1             ; r0 & r6 are unbound thus generated
                                       ; branch states are identical
     5: *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0xdeadbeef ; 64-bit write to fp[-8]
    --- checkpoint ---
     6: r1 = 42                        ; r1 marked as written
     7: *(u8 *)(r10 - 8) = r1          ; 8-bit write, fp[-8] parent & live
                                       ; overwritten
     8: r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 8)
     9: r0 = 0
    10: exit

This example is unsafe because 64-bit write to fp[-8] at (5) is
conditional, thus not all bytes of fp[-8] are guaranteed to be set
when it is read at (8). However, currently the example passes
verification.

First, the execution path 1-10 is examined by verifier.
Suppose that a new checkpoint is created by is_state_visited() at (6).
After checkpoint creation:
- r1.parent points to checkpoint.r1,
- fp[-8].parent points to checkpoint.fp[-8].
At (6) the r1.live is set to REG_LIVE_WRITTEN.
At (7) the fp[-8].parent is set to r1.parent and fp[-8].live is set to
REG_LIVE_WRITTEN, because of the following code called in
check_stack_write_fixed_off():

static void save_register_state(struct bpf_func_state *state,
				int spi, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
				int size)
{
	...
	state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = *reg;  // <--- parent & live copied
	if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE)
		state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
	...
}

Note the intent to mark stack spill as written only if 8 bytes are
spilled to a slot, however this intent is spoiled by a 'live' field copy.
At (8) the checkpoint.fp[-8] should be marked as REG_LIVE_READ but
this does not happen:
- fp[-8] in a current state is already marked as REG_LIVE_WRITTEN;
- fp[-8].parent points to checkpoint.r1, parentage chain is used by
  mark_reg_read() to mark checkpoint states.
At (10) the verification is finished for path 1-10 and jump 4-6 is
examined. The checkpoint.fp[-8] never gets REG_LIVE_READ mark and this
spill is pruned from the cached states by clean_live_states(). Hence
verifier state obtained via path 1-4,6 is deemed identical to one
obtained via path 1-6 and program marked as safe.

Note: the example should be executed with BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ flag
set to force creation of intermediate verifier states.

This commit revisits the locations where bpf_reg_state instances are
copied and replaces the direct copies with a call to a function
copy_register_state(dst, src) that preserves 'parent' and 'live'
fields of the 'dst'.

Fixes: 679c782de14b ("bpf/verifier: per-register parent pointers")
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230106142214.1040390-2-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix pointer-leak due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation

2023-01-13T16:18:35+00:00

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 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Henriette Hofmeier 
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

bpf: Skip invalid kfunc call in backtrack_insn

2023-01-06T17:49:37+00:00

The verifier skips invalid kfunc call in check_kfunc_call(), which
would be captured in fixup_kfunc_call() if such insn is not eliminated
by dead code elimination. However, this can lead to the following
warning in backtrack_insn(), also see [1]:

  ------------[ cut here ]------------
  verifier backtracking bug
  WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 8646 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2756 backtrack_insn
  kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2756
	__mark_chain_precision kernel/bpf/verifier.c:3065
	mark_chain_precision kernel/bpf/verifier.c:3165
	adjust_reg_min_max_vals kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10715
	check_alu_op kernel/bpf/verifier.c:10928
	do_check kernel/bpf/verifier.c:13821 [inline]
	do_check_common kernel/bpf/verifier.c:16289
  [...]

So make backtracking conservative with this by returning ENOTSUPP.

  [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsaXNceR8ZjkLG=dT3P=4A8SBsg0Z5h5PWLryF5=ghKq=g@mail.gmail.com/

Reported-by: syzbot+4da3ff23081bafe74fc2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Hao Sun 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Yonghong Song 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230104014709.9375-1-sunhao.th@gmail.com

bpf: Always use maximal size for copy_array()

2022-12-28T22:54:53+00:00

Instead of counting on prior allocations to have sized allocations to
the next kmalloc bucket size, always perform a krealloc that is at least
ksize(dst) in size (which is a no-op), so the size can be correctly
tracked by all the various allocation size trackers (KASAN,
__alloc_size, etc).

Reported-by: Hyunwoo Kim 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221223094551.GA1439509@ubuntu
Fixes: ceb35b666d42 ("bpf/verifier: Use kmalloc_size_roundup() to match ksize() usage")
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov 
Cc: Daniel Borkmann 
Cc: John Fastabend 
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko 
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau 
Cc: Song Liu 
Cc: Yonghong Song 
Cc: KP Singh 
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev 
Cc: Hao Luo 
Cc: Jiri Olsa 
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221223182836.never.866-kees@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: fix nullness propagation for reg to reg comparisons

2022-12-23T01:19:06+00:00

After befae75856ab, the verifier would propagate null information after
JEQ/JNE, e.g., if two pointers, one is maybe_null and the other is not,
the former would be marked as non-null in eq path. However, as comment
"PTR_TO_BTF_ID points to a kernel struct that does not need to be null
checked by the BPF program ... The verifier must keep this in mind and
can make no assumptions about null or non-null when doing branch ...".
If one pointer is maybe_null and the other is PTR_TO_BTF, the former is
incorrectly marked non-null. The following BPF prog can trigger a
null-ptr-deref, also see this report for more details[1]:

	0: (18) r1 = map_fd	        ; R1_w=map_ptr(ks=4, vs=4)
	2: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)    ; R6_w=bpf_map->inner_map_data
					; R6 is PTR_TO_BTF_ID
					; equals to null at runtime
	3: (bf) r2 = r10
	4: (07) r2 += -4
	5: (62) *(u32 *)(r2 +0) = 0
	6: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1    ; R0_w=map_value_or_null
	7: (1d) if r6 == r0 goto pc+1
	8: (95) exit
	; from 7 to 9: R0=map_value R6=ptr_bpf_map
	9: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r0 +0)          ; null-ptr-deref
	10: (95) exit

So, make the verifier propagate nullness information for reg to reg
comparisons only if neither reg is PTR_TO_BTF_ID.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsaFJwjC5oiw-1KXvcazywodwXo4zGYsRHwbr2gSG9WcSw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u

Fixes: befae75856ab ("bpf: propagate nullness information for reg to reg comparisons")
Signed-off-by: Hao Sun 
Acked-by: Yonghong Song 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221222024414.29539-1-sunhao.th@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau

bpf: use check_ids() for active_lock comparison

2022-12-10T21:20:53+00:00

An update for verifier.c:states_equal()/regsafe() to use check_ids()
for active spin lock comparisons. This fixes the issue reported by
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi in [1] using technique suggested by Edward Cree.

W/o this commit the verifier might be tricked to accept the following
program working with a map containing spin locks:

  0: r9 = map_lookup_elem(...)  ; Returns PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL id=1.
  1: r8 = map_lookup_elem(...)  ; Returns PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL id=2.
  2: if r9 == 0 goto exit       ; r9 -> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE.
  3: if r8 == 0 goto exit       ; r8 -> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE.
  4: r7 = ktime_get_ns()        ; Unbound SCALAR_VALUE.
  5: r6 = ktime_get_ns()        ; Unbound SCALAR_VALUE.
  6: bpf_spin_lock(r8)          ; active_lock.id == 2.
  7: if r6 > r7 goto +1         ; No new information about the state
                                ; is derived from this check, thus
                                ; produced verifier states differ only
                                ; in 'insn_idx'.
  8: r9 = r8                    ; Optionally make r9.id == r8.id.
  --- checkpoint ---            ; Assume is_state_visisted() creates a
                                ; checkpoint here.
  9: bpf_spin_unlock(r9)        ; (a,b) active_lock.id == 2.
                                ; (a) r9.id == 2, (b) r9.id == 1.
 10: exit(0)

Consider two verification paths:
(a) 0-10
(b) 0-7,9-10

The path (a) is verified first. If checkpoint is created at (8)
the (b) would assume that (8) is safe because regsafe() does not
compare register ids for registers of type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221111202719.982118-1-memxor@gmail.com/

Reported-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Suggested-by: Edward Cree 
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221209135733.28851-6-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov