netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: adjust verifier heuristics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 May 2017 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     ast@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: adjust verifier heuristics

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 03:00:06 +0200

> Current limits with regards to processing program paths do not
> really reflect today's needs anymore due to programs becoming
> more complex and verifier smarter, keeping track of more data
> such as const ALU operations, alignment tracking, spilling of
> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ registers, and other features allowing for
> smarter matching of what LLVM generates.
> 
> This also comes with the side-effect that we result in fewer
> opportunities to prune search states and thus often need to do
> more work to prove safety than in the past due to different
> register states and stack layout where we mismatch. Generally,
> it's quite hard to determine what caused a sudden increase in
> complexity, it could be caused by something as trivial as a
> single branch somewhere at the beginning of the program where
> LLVM assigned a stack slot that is marked differently throughout
> other branches and thus causing a mismatch, where verifier
> then needs to prove safety for the whole rest of the program.
> Subsequently, programs with even less than half the insn size
> limit can get rejected. We noticed that while some programs
> load fine under pre 4.11, they get rejected due to hitting
> limits on more recent kernels. We saw that in the vast majority
> of cases (90+%) pruning failed due to register mismatches. In
> case of stack mismatches, majority of cases failed due to
> different stack slot types (invalid, spill, misc) rather than
> differences in spilled registers.
> 
> This patch makes pruning more aggressive by also adding markers
> that sit at conditional jumps as well. Currently, we only mark
> jump targets for pruning. For example in direct packet access,
> these are usually error paths where we bail out. We found that
> adding these markers, it can reduce number of processed insns
> by up to 30%. Another option is to ignore reg->id in probing
> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers, which can help pruning
> slightly as well by up to 7% observed complexity reduction as
> stand-alone. Meaning, if a previous path with register type
> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL for map X was found to be safe, then
> in the current state a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL register for
> the same map X must be safe as well. Last but not least the
> patch also adds a scheduling point and bumps the current limit
> for instructions to be processed to a more adequate value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>

Ok, applied, but we should continue trying to make the pruner
more effective.