netdev - [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix stacksafe exploration when comparing states

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20171223100955.7208-1-g.borello@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:09:55 +0000
From:   Gianluca Borello <g.borello@...il.com>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        Gianluca Borello <g.borello@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: fix stacksafe exploration when comparing states

Commit cc2b14d51053 ("bpf: teach verifier to recognize zero initialized
stack") introduced a very relaxed check when comparing stacks of different
states, effectively returning a positive result in many cases where it
shouldn't.

This can create problems in cases such as this following C pseudocode:

long var;
long *x = bpf_map_lookup(...);
if (!x)
        return;

if (*x != 0xbeef)
        var = 0;
else
        var = 1;

/* This is the key part, calling a helper causes an explored state
 * to be saved with the information that "var" is on the stack as
 * STACK_ZERO, since the helper is first met by the verifier after
 * the "var = 0" assignment. This state will however be wrongly used
 * also for the "var = 1" case, so the verifier assumes "var" is always
 * 0 and will replace the NULL assignment with nops, because the
 * search pruning prevents it from exploring the faulty branch.
 */
bpf_ktime_get_ns();

if (var)
        *(long *)0 = 0xbeef;

Fix the issue by making sure that the stack is fully explored before
returning a positive comparison result.

Also attach a couple tests that highlight the bad behavior. In the first
test, without this fix instructions 16 and 17 are replaced with nops
instead of being rejected by the verifier.

The second test, instead, allows a program to make a potentially illegal
read from the stack.

Fixes: cc2b14d51053 ("bpf: teach verifier to recognize zero initialized stack")
Signed-off-by: Gianluca Borello <g.borello@...il.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                       |  2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 8b442ae125d0..93e1c77dae1d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4107,7 +4107,7 @@ static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_func_state *old,
 
 		if (!(old->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live & REG_LIVE_READ))
 			/* explored state didn't use this */
-			return true;
+			continue;
 
 		if (old->stack[spi].slot_type[i % BPF_REG_SIZE] == STACK_INVALID)
 			continue;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 3bacff0d6f91..5e79515d10c5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -9715,6 +9715,57 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.result = REJECT,
 		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
 	},
+	{
+		"search pruning: all branches should be verified (nop operation)",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
+			BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+			BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 11),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, 0xbeef, 2),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_A(1),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 1),
+			BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_4, -16),
+			BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_10, -16),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_5, 0, 2),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, 0),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, 0, 0xdead),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+		.errstr = "R6 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
+	},
+	{
+		"search pruning: all branches should be verified (invalid stack access)",
+		.insns = {
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+			BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
+			BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+			BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
+			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_3, 0xbeef, 2),
+			BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_4, -16),
+			BPF_JMP_A(1),
+			BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_4, -24),
+			BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_10, -16),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.fixup_map1 = { 3 },
+		.errstr = "invalid read from stack off -16+0 size 8",
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
+	},
 };
 
 static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)
-- 
2.14.1