linux-kernel - [PATCH bpf-next v2 25/26] bpf: Maintain FIFO property for rqspinlock unlock

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: <20250206105435.2159977-26-memxor@gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  6 Feb 2025 02:54:33 -0800
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
	Dohyun Kim <dohyunkim@...gle.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 25/26] bpf: Maintain FIFO property for rqspinlock unlock

Since out-of-order unlocks are unsupported for rqspinlock, and irqsave
variants enforce strict FIFO ordering anyway, make the same change for
normal non-irqsave variants, such that FIFO ordering is enforced.

Two new verifier state fields (active_lock_id, active_lock_ptr) are used
to denote the top of the stack, and prev_id and prev_ptr are ascertained
whenever popping the topmost entry through an unlock.

Take special care to make these fields part of the state comparison in
refsafe.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
---
 include/linux/bpf_verifier.h |  3 +++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index ed444e44f524..92cd2289b743 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ struct bpf_reference_state {
 		REF_TYPE_LOCK		= (1 << 3),
 		REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK 	= (1 << 4),
 		REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK_IRQ	= (1 << 5),
+		REF_TYPE_LOCK_MASK	= REF_TYPE_LOCK | REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK | REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK_IRQ,
 	} type;
 	/* Track each reference created with a unique id, even if the same
 	 * instruction creates the reference multiple times (eg, via CALL).
@@ -435,6 +436,8 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state {
 	u32 active_locks;
 	u32 active_preempt_locks;
 	u32 active_irq_id;
+	u32 active_lock_id;
+	void *active_lock_ptr;
 	bool active_rcu_lock;
 
 	bool speculative;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 294761dd0072..9cac6ea4f844 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ static int copy_reference_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *dst, const struct bpf
 	dst->active_preempt_locks = src->active_preempt_locks;
 	dst->active_rcu_lock = src->active_rcu_lock;
 	dst->active_irq_id = src->active_irq_id;
+	dst->active_lock_id = src->active_lock_id;
+	dst->active_lock_ptr = src->active_lock_ptr;
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -1520,6 +1522,8 @@ static int acquire_lock_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, enum r
 	s->ptr = ptr;
 
 	state->active_locks++;
+	state->active_lock_id = id;
+	state->active_lock_ptr = ptr;
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -1559,16 +1563,24 @@ static void release_reference_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *state, int idx)
 
 static int release_lock_state(struct bpf_verifier_state *state, int type, int id, void *ptr)
 {
+	void *prev_ptr = NULL;
+	u32 prev_id = 0;
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < state->acquired_refs; i++) {
-		if (state->refs[i].type != type)
-			continue;
-		if (state->refs[i].id == id && state->refs[i].ptr == ptr) {
+		if (state->refs[i].type == type && state->refs[i].id == id &&
+		    state->refs[i].ptr == ptr) {
 			release_reference_state(state, i);
 			state->active_locks--;
+			/* Reassign active lock (id, ptr). */
+			state->active_lock_id = prev_id;
+			state->active_lock_ptr = prev_ptr;
 			return 0;
 		}
+		if (state->refs[i].type & REF_TYPE_LOCK_MASK) {
+			prev_id = state->refs[i].id;
+			prev_ptr = state->refs[i].ptr;
+		}
 	}
 	return -EINVAL;
 }
@@ -8123,6 +8135,14 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, int flags)
 			type = REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK;
 		else
 			type = REF_TYPE_LOCK;
+		if (!find_lock_state(cur, type, reg->id, ptr)) {
+			verbose(env, "%s_unlock of different lock\n", lock_str);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (reg->id != cur->active_lock_id || ptr != cur->active_lock_ptr) {
+			verbose(env, "%s_unlock cannot be out of order\n", lock_str);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
 		if (release_lock_state(cur, type, reg->id, ptr)) {
 			verbose(env, "%s_unlock of different lock\n", lock_str);
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -12284,8 +12304,7 @@ static int check_reg_allocation_locked(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_
 
 	if (!env->cur_state->active_locks)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	s = find_lock_state(env->cur_state, REF_TYPE_LOCK | REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK | REF_TYPE_RES_LOCK_IRQ,
-			    id, ptr);
+	s = find_lock_state(env->cur_state, REF_TYPE_LOCK_MASK, id, ptr);
 	if (!s) {
 		verbose(env, "held lock and object are not in the same allocation\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -18288,6 +18307,10 @@ static bool refsafe(struct bpf_verifier_state *old, struct bpf_verifier_state *c
 	if (!check_ids(old->active_irq_id, cur->active_irq_id, idmap))
 		return false;
 
+	if (!check_ids(old->active_lock_id, cur->active_lock_id, idmap) ||
+	    old->active_lock_ptr != cur->active_lock_ptr)
+		return false;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < old->acquired_refs; i++) {
 		if (!check_ids(old->refs[i].id, cur->refs[i].id, idmap) ||
 		    old->refs[i].type != cur->refs[i].type)
-- 
2.43.5