linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.10 08/62] bpf: improve verifier packet range checks

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]

Message-Id: <20170501212731.106017921@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon,  1 May 2017 14:34:21 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Huapeng Zhou <hzhou@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 4.10 08/62] bpf: improve verifier packet range checks

4.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>


[ Upstream commit b1977682a3858b5584ffea7cfb7bd863f68db18d ]

llvm can optimize the 'if (ptr > data_end)' checks to be in the order
slightly different than the original C code which will confuse verifier.
Like:
if (ptr + 16 > data_end)
  return TC_ACT_SHOT;
// may be followed by
if (ptr + 14 > data_end)
  return TC_ACT_SHOT;
while llvm can see that 'ptr' is valid for all 16 bytes,
the verifier could not.
Fix verifier logic to account for such case and add a test.

Reported-by: Huapeng Zhou <hzhou@...com>
Fixes: 969bf05eb3ce ("bpf: direct packet access")
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |    5 +++--
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1859,14 +1859,15 @@ static void find_good_pkt_pointers(struc
 
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_REG; i++)
 		if (regs[i].type == PTR_TO_PACKET && regs[i].id == dst_reg->id)
-			regs[i].range = dst_reg->off;
+			/* keep the maximum range already checked */
+			regs[i].range = max(regs[i].range, dst_reg->off);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_BPF_STACK; i += BPF_REG_SIZE) {
 		if (state->stack_slot_type[i] != STACK_SPILL)
 			continue;
 		reg = &state->spilled_regs[i / BPF_REG_SIZE];
 		if (reg->type == PTR_TO_PACKET && reg->id == dst_reg->id)
-			reg->range = dst_reg->off;
+			reg->range = max(reg->range, dst_reg->off);
 	}
 }
 
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -2876,6 +2876,26 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT,
 	},
 	{
+		"overlapping checks for direct packet access",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1,
+				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
+				    offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 8),
+			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, 4),
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 6),
+			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 1),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 6),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.result = ACCEPT,
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT,
+	},
+	{
 		"invalid access of tc_classid for LWT_IN",
 		.insns = {
 			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,