| 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: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:04:31 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Kuee K1r0a <liulin063@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.15 015/230] bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
commit 3844d153a41adea718202c10ae91dc96b37453b5 upstream.
Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call
to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its
min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds.
This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as
is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().
Before:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff;
0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that
is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has
not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved
the umax to be equal to umin.
Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync()
helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been
corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register
is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0.
After:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values")
Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a <liulin063@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 72 +++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1333,6 +1333,21 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bp
reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(var64_off), var32_off);
}
+static void reg_bounds_sync(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+ /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
+ __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
+ __reg_bound_offset(reg);
+ /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
+ * slightly, e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
+ * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
+ */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+}
+
static bool __reg32_bound_s64(s32 a)
{
return a >= 0 && a <= S32_MAX;
@@ -1374,16 +1389,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(str
* so they do not impact tnum bounds calculation.
*/
__mark_reg64_unbounded(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a)
@@ -1399,7 +1406,6 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a)
static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
__mark_reg32_unbounded(reg);
-
if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) {
reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value;
reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value;
@@ -1408,14 +1414,7 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(str
reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value;
reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value;
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
/* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */
@@ -6054,9 +6053,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struc
ret_reg->s32_max_value = meta->msize_max_value;
ret_reg->smin_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
ret_reg->s32_min_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
- __reg_deduce_bounds(ret_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(ret_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(ret_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(ret_reg);
}
static int
@@ -7216,11 +7213,7 @@ reject:
if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, dst_reg, ptr_reg->type))
return -EINVAL;
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
-
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
return -EACCES;
if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
@@ -7958,10 +7951,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(st
/* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
if (alu32)
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
return 0;
}
@@ -8150,10 +8140,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verif
insn->dst_reg);
}
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
} else {
/* case: R = imm
@@ -8756,21 +8743,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct
dst_reg->smax_value);
src_reg->var_off = dst_reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(src_reg->var_off,
dst_reg->var_off);
- /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(src_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
- __reg_bound_offset(src_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(src_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
static void reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_src,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists