| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20180118001521.9729-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:15:21 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: ast@...com
Cc: ecree@...arflare.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s,u}bounds adjustments
syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with
the following:
0: (b7) r0 = 0
1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0
R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
2: (1f) r0 -= r1
R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0
verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds
What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value
are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle
test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false
path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when
ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the
internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val
for the known constant.
For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max()
and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds)
demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime.
In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the
existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection
is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the
WARN() is not necessary either.
We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or
umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds
smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there
may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle
this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals()
just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with
such kind of src reg.
Reported-by: syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 27 +++---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index eb062b0..13551e6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1895,17 +1895,13 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
dst_reg = ®s[dst];
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (smin_val != smax_val))) {
- print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state);
- verbose(env,
- "verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (umin_val != umax_val))) {
- print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state);
- verbose(env,
- "verifier internal error: known but bad ubounds\n");
- return -EINVAL;
+ if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) ||
+ smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) {
+ /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from
+ * e.g. dead branches.
+ */
+ __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);
+ return 0;
}
if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) {
@@ -2097,6 +2093,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
src_known = tnum_is_const(src_reg.var_off);
dst_known = tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off);
+ if ((src_known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) ||
+ smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) {
+ /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from
+ * e.g. dead branches.
+ */
+ __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
if (!src_known &&
opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) {
__mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 67e7c41..5ed4175 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -6732,7 +6732,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7),
},
.fixup_map1 = { 4 },
- .errstr = "unbounded min value",
+ .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -8634,6 +8634,127 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 3",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 4",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 5",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 6",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 7",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 8",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 9",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
+ },
+ {
+ "check deducing bounds from const, 10",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0),
+ /* Marks reg as unknown. */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "math between ctx pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed",
+ },
+ {
"bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1",
.insns = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
--
2.9.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists