| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:06:35 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andrii@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Help with verifier failure
On 4/21/21 5:23 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently when our internal Clang build was updated to 0e92cbd6a652 we started
> hitting a verifier issue that I can't see an easy fix for. I've narrowed it down
> to a minimal reproducer - this email is a patch to add that repro as a prog
> test (./test_progs -t example).
>
> Here's the BPF code I get from the attached source:
>
> 0000000000000000 <exec>:
> ; int BPF_PROG(exec, struct linux_binprm *bprm) {
> 0: 79 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0)
> 1: 7b 1a e8 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 24) = r1
> ; uint64_t args_size = bprm->argc & 0xFFFFFFF;
> 2: 61 17 58 00 00 00 00 00 r7 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 88)
> 3: b4 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 w1 = 0
> ; int map_key = 0;
> 4: 63 1a fc ff 00 00 00 00 *(u32 *)(r10 - 4) = r1
> 5: bf a2 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = r10
> 6: 07 02 00 00 fc ff ff ff r2 += -4
> ; void *buf = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&buf_map, &map_key);
> 7: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll
> 9: 85 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 call 1
> 10: 7b 0a f0 ff 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r10 - 16) = r0
> 11: 57 07 00 00 ff ff ff 0f r7 &= 268435455
> 12: bf 76 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r7
> ; if (!buf)
> 13: 16 07 12 00 00 00 00 00 if w7 == 0 goto +18 <LBB0_7>
> 14: 79 a1 f0 ff 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 16)
> 15: 15 01 10 00 00 00 00 00 if r1 == 0 goto +16 <LBB0_7>
> 16: b4 09 00 00 00 00 00 00 w9 = 0
> 17: b7 01 00 00 00 10 00 00 r1 = 4096
> 18: bf 68 00 00 00 00 00 00 r8 = r6
> 19: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_3>
>
> 00000000000000a0 <LBB0_5>:
> ; void *src = (void *)(char *)bprm->p + offset;
> 20: 79 a1 e8 ff 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 24)
> 21: 79 13 18 00 00 00 00 00 r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 24)
> ; uint64_t read_size = args_size - offset;
> 22: 0f 73 00 00 00 00 00 00 r3 += r7
> 23: 07 03 00 00 00 f0 ff ff r3 += -4096
> ; (void) bpf_probe_read_user(buf, read_size, src);
> 24: 79 a1 f0 ff 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 16)
> 25: 85 00 00 00 70 00 00 00 call 112
> ; for (int i = 0; i < 512 && offset < args_size; i++) {
> 26: 26 09 05 00 fe 01 00 00 if w9 > 510 goto +5 <LBB0_7>
> 27: 07 08 00 00 00 f0 ff ff r8 += -4096
> 28: bf 71 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = r7
> 29: 07 01 00 00 00 10 00 00 r1 += 4096
> 30: 04 09 00 00 01 00 00 00 w9 += 1
> ; for (int i = 0; i < 512 && offset < args_size; i++) {
> 31: ad 67 02 00 00 00 00 00 if r7 < r6 goto +2 <LBB0_3>
>
> 0000000000000100 <LBB0_7>:
> ; int BPF_PROG(exec, struct linux_binprm *bprm) {
> 32: b4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w0 = 0
> 33: 95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 exit
>
> 0000000000000110 <LBB0_3>:
> 34: bf 17 00 00 00 00 00 00 r7 = r1
> ; (void) bpf_probe_read_user(buf, read_size, src);
> 35: bc 82 00 00 00 00 00 00 w2 = w8
> 36: a5 08 ef ff 00 10 00 00 if r8 < 4096 goto -17 <LBB0_5>
> 37: b4 02 00 00 00 10 00 00 w2 = 4096
> 38: 05 00 ed ff 00 00 00 00 goto -19 <LBB0_5>
>
>
> The full log I get is at
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/bjackman/2928c4ff4cc89545f3993bddd9d5edb2/raw/feda6d7c165d24be3ea72c3cf7045c50246abd83/gistfile1.txt ,
> but basically the verifier runs through the loop a large number of times, going
> down the true path of the `if (read_size > CHUNK_LEN)` every time. Then
> eventually it takes the false path.
>
> In the disassembly this is basically instructions 35-37 - pseudocode:
> w2 = w8
> if (r8 < 4096) {
> w2 = 4096
> }
>
> w2 can't exceed 4096 but the verifier doesn't seem to "backpropagate" those
> bounds from r8 (note the umax_value for R8 goes to 4095 after the branch from 36
> to 20, but R2's umax_value is still 266342399)
>
> from 31 to 34: R0_w=inv(id=0) R1_w=inv2097152 R6=inv(id=2,umin_value=2093057,umax_value=268435455,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R7_w=inv2093056 R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=266342399,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R9_w=invP511 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? fp-16=map_value fp-24=ptr_
> ; int BPF_PROG(exec, struct linux_binprm *bprm) {
> 34: (bf) r7 = r1
> ; (void) bpf_probe_read_user(buf, read_size, src);
> 35: (bc) w2 = w8
> 36: (a5) if r8 < 0x1000 goto pc-17
>
> from 36 to 20: R0_w=inv(id=0) R1_w=inv2097152 R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=266342399,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R6=inv(id=2,umin_value=2093057,umax_value=268435455,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R7_w=inv2097152 R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4095,var_off=(0x0; 0xfff)) R9_w=invP511 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? fp-16=map_value fp-24=ptr_
> ; void *src = (void *)(char *)bprm->p + offset;
> 20: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -24)
> 21: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +24)
> ; uint64_t read_size = args_size - offset;
> 22: (0f) r3 += r7
> 23: (07) r3 += -4096
> ; (void) bpf_probe_read_user(buf, read_size, src);
> 24: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16)
> 25: (85) call bpf_probe_read_user#112
> R0_w=inv(id=0) R1_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=4096,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=266342399,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R3_w=inv(id=0) R6=inv(id=2,umin_value=2093057,umax_value=268435455,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R7_w=inv2097152 R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4095,var_off=(0x0; 0xfff)) R9_w=invP511 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? fp-16=map_value fp-24=ptr_
> R0_w=inv(id=0) R1_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=4096,imm=0) R2_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=266342399,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R3_w=inv(id=0) R6=inv(id=2,umin_value=2093057,umax_value=268435455,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffff)) R7_w=inv2097152 R8_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=4095,var_off=(0x0; 0xfff)) R9_w=invP511 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmm???? fp-16=map_value fp-24=ptr_
> invalid access to map value, value_size=4096 off=0 size=266342399
> R1 min value is outside of the allowed memory range
> processed 9239 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 4 total_states 133 peak_states 133 mark_read 2
Thanks, Brendan. Looks at least the verifier failure is triggered
by recent clang changes. I will take a look whether we could
improve verifier for such a case and whether we could improve
clang to avoid generate such codes the verifier doesn't like.
Will get back to you once I had concrete analysis.
>
> This seems like it must be a common pitfall, any idea what we can do to fix it
> and avoid it in future? Am I misunderstanding the issue?
>
> Cheers,
> Brendan
>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists