linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/5] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness

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: <CAADnVQKs3=pEea7VeTfxpuB7uxzZRCjikPGu17uusTpGdqLxDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 16:49:13 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/5] bpf: verifier: Support eliding map lookup nullness

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 4:43 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-12-19 at 17:40 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Ok, thinking a bit more, the best test I can come up with is:
> > >
> > >   u8 vals[8];
> > >   vals[0] = 0;
> > >   ...
> > >   vals[6] = 0;
> > >   vals[7] = 0xf;
> > >   p = bpf_map_lookup_elem(... vals ...);
> > >   *p = 42;
> > >
> > > For LE vals as u32 should be 0x0f;
> > > For BE vals as u32 should be 0xf000_0000.
> > > Hence, it is not safe to remove null check for this program.
> > > What would verifier think about the value of such key?
> > > As far as I understand, there would be stack zero for for vals[0-6]
> > > and u8 stack spill for vals[7].
> >
> > Right. By checking that spill size is same as key size, we stay endian
> > neutral, as constant values are tracked in native endianness.
> >
> > However, if we were to start interpreting combinations of STACK_ZERO,
> > STACK_MISC, and STACK_SPILL, the verifier would have to be endian aware
> > (IIUC). Which makes it a somewhat interesting problem but also requires
> > some thought to correctly handle the state space.
>
> Right.
>
> > > You were going to add a check for the spill size, which should help here.
> > > So, a negative test like above that checks that verifier complains
> > > that 'p' should be checked for nullness first?
> > >
> > > If anyone has better test in mind, please speak-up.
> >
> > I think this case reduces down to a spill_size != key_size test. As long
> > as the sizes match, we don't have to worry about endianness.
>
> Agree.

Earlier I suggested to generalize this zero/misc/spill counting
into a helper and reuse here and in check_stack_read_fixed_off().

We do very similar checks there with a similar purpose.

It sounds there are ideas to make this particular feature smarter
than what we have in check_stack_read_fixed_off().
Let's not overdo it.
Even if a common helper is not possible, keep things consistent.
The simpler the better.