linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: verifier: prevent userspace memory access

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mb61pwmpvst3v.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:48:52 +0000
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Ilya Leoshkevich
 <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern
 <dsahern@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai
 Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu
 <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
 Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
 <hpa@...or.com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, Network
 Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: verifier: prevent userspace memory access

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 4:05 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:11 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...ilcom> wrote:
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_compc
>> > index e613eebfd349..e61a51a5b4be 100644
>> > --- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > +++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > @@ -2691,3 +2691,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_subprog_tailcalls(void)
>> >  {
>> >         return true;
>> >  }
>> > +
>> > +u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>> > +{
>> > +       return -ENOTSUPP;
>> > +}
>>
>> Looks good and should work, but s390 CI is still not happy.
>> Ideas?
>> sock tests were not failing before. So something is going on.
>
> I think I have an explanation.
> -ENOTSUPP and u64... and later:
> u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit()
> if (uaddress_limit < 0)
>
> I bet the compiler simply removes this check since unsigned cannot
> be negative.
> Odd that there is no compiler warning.
>
> pw-bot: cr
>

Yes, I verified that the compiler is removing this:

                if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
    a944:       7100047f        cmp     w3, #0x1
    a948:       540013e1        b.ne    abc4 <do_misc_fixups+0x66c>  // b.any
    a94c:       721a041f        tst     w0, #0xc0
    a950:       54fff4e1        b.ne    a7ec <do_misc_fixups+0x294>  // b.any
                        u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit();
    a954:       b90003e6        str     w6, [sp]
    a958:       94000000        bl      0 <bpf_arch_uaddress_limit>
                        *patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg);

We should do:
   if (!uaddress_limit)
        goto next_insn;

and in the disabled case return 0 in place of -ENOSUPP.

Doing this adds the check:

             if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_LDX &&
    a944:       7100047f        cmp     w3, #0x1
    a948:       54001401        b.ne    abc8 <do_misc_fixups+0x670>  // b.any
    a94c:       721a041f        tst     w0, #0xc0
    a950:       54fff4e1        b.ne    a7ec <do_misc_fixups+0x294>  // b.any
                        u64 uaddress_limit = bpf_arch_uaddress_limit();
    a954:       b90003e6        str     w6, [sp]
    a958:       94000000        bl      0 <bpf_arch_uaddress_limit>
                        if (!uaddress_limit)
    a95c:       b4fff020        cbz     x0, a760 <do_misc_fixups+0x208>
                        *patch++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_AX, insn->src_reg);

I will send v3 with this approach.

Thanks,
Puranjay