| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20200406221604.18547-1-luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:16:04 +0000
From: Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>, Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf] riscv, bpf: Fix offset range checking for auipc+jalr on RV64
The existing code in emit_call on RV64 checks that the PC-relative offset
to the function fits in 32 bits before calling emit_jump_and_link to emit
an auipc+jalr pair. However, this check is incorrect because offsets in
the range [2^31 - 2^11, 2^31 - 1] cannot be encoded using auipc+jalr on
RV64 (see discussion [1]). The RISC-V spec has recently been updated
to reflect this fact [2, 3].
This patch fixes the problem by moving the check on the offset into
emit_jump_and_link and modifying it to the correct range of encodable
offsets, which is [-2^31 - 2^11, 2^31 - 2^11). This also enforces the
check on the offset to other uses of emit_jump_and_link (e.g., BPF_JA)
as well.
Currently, this bug is unlikely to be triggered, because the memory
region from which JITed images are allocated is close enough to kernel
text for the offsets to not become too large; and because the bounds on
BPF program size are small enough. This patch prevents this problem from
becoming an issue if either of these change.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/bwWFhBnnZFQ
[2]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/b1e42e09ac55116dbf9de5e4fb326a5a90e4a993
[3]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/4c1b2066ebd2965a422e41eb262d0a208a7fea07
Signed-off-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index cc1985d8750a..d208a9fd6c52 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -110,6 +110,16 @@ static bool is_32b_int(s64 val)
return -(1L << 31) <= val && val < (1L << 31);
}
+static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
+{
+ /*
+ * auipc+jalr can reach any signed PC-relative offset in the range
+ * [-2^31 - 2^11, 2^31 - 2^11).
+ */
+ return (-(1L << 31) - (1L << 11)) <= val &&
+ val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
+}
+
static void emit_imm(u8 rd, s64 val, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
/* Note that the immediate from the add is sign-extended,
@@ -380,20 +390,24 @@ static void emit_sext_32_rd(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
*rd = RV_REG_T2;
}
-static void emit_jump_and_link(u8 rd, s64 rvoff, bool force_jalr,
- struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+static int emit_jump_and_link(u8 rd, s64 rvoff, bool force_jalr,
+ struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
s64 upper, lower;
if (rvoff && is_21b_int(rvoff) && !force_jalr) {
emit(rv_jal(rd, rvoff >> 1), ctx);
- return;
+ return 0;
+ } else if (in_auipc_jalr_range(rvoff)) {
+ upper = (rvoff + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
+ lower = rvoff & 0xfff;
+ emit(rv_auipc(RV_REG_T1, upper), ctx);
+ emit(rv_jalr(rd, RV_REG_T1, lower), ctx);
+ return 0;
}
- upper = (rvoff + (1 << 11)) >> 12;
- lower = rvoff & 0xfff;
- emit(rv_auipc(RV_REG_T1, upper), ctx);
- emit(rv_jalr(rd, RV_REG_T1, lower), ctx);
+ pr_err("bpf-jit: target offset 0x%llx is out of range\n", rvoff);
+ return -ERANGE;
}
static bool is_signed_bpf_cond(u8 cond)
@@ -407,18 +421,16 @@ static int emit_call(bool fixed, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
s64 off = 0;
u64 ip;
u8 rd;
+ int ret;
if (addr && ctx->insns) {
ip = (u64)(long)(ctx->insns + ctx->ninsns);
off = addr - ip;
- if (!is_32b_int(off)) {
- pr_err("bpf-jit: target call addr %pK is out of range\n",
- (void *)addr);
- return -ERANGE;
- }
}
- emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_RA, off, !fixed, ctx);
+ ret = emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_RA, off, !fixed, ctx);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
rd = bpf_to_rv_reg(BPF_REG_0, ctx);
emit(rv_addi(rd, RV_REG_A0, 0), ctx);
return 0;
@@ -429,7 +441,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
{
bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64 ||
BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_JMP;
- int s, e, rvoff, i = insn - ctx->prog->insnsi;
+ int s, e, rvoff, ret, i = insn - ctx->prog->insnsi;
struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = ctx->prog->aux;
u8 rd = -1, rs = -1, code = insn->code;
s16 off = insn->off;
@@ -699,7 +711,9 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
/* JUMP off */
case BPF_JMP | BPF_JA:
rvoff = rv_offset(i, off, ctx);
- emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, false, ctx);
+ ret = emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, false, ctx);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
break;
/* IF (dst COND src) JUMP off */
@@ -801,7 +815,6 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL:
{
bool fixed;
- int ret;
u64 addr;
mark_call(ctx);
@@ -826,7 +839,9 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
break;
rvoff = epilogue_offset(ctx);
- emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, false, ctx);
+ ret = emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, false, ctx);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
break;
/* dst = imm64 */
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists