| 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: <20180422235538.5tqayfahfeqanfou@ast-mbp>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:55:40 -0600
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: ast@...com, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/9] bpf/verifier: refine retval R0 state for
bpf_get_stack helper
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:18:36PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> The special property of return values for helpers bpf_get_stack
> and bpf_probe_read_str are captured in verifier.
> Both helpers return a negative error code or
> a length, which is equal to or smaller than the buffer
> size argument. This additional information in the
> verifier can avoid the condition such as "retval > bufsize"
> in the bpf program. For example, for the code blow,
> usize = bpf_get_stack(ctx, raw_data, max_len, BPF_F_USER_STACK);
> if (usize < 0 || usize > max_len)
> return 0;
> The verifier may have the following errors:
> 52: (85) call bpf_get_stack#65
> R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R1_w=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
> R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R3_w=inv800 R4_w=inv256
> R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0)
> R9_w=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1
> 53: (bf) r8 = r0
> 54: (bf) r1 = r8
> 55: (67) r1 <<= 32
> 56: (bf) r2 = r1
> 57: (77) r2 >>= 32
> 58: (25) if r2 > 0x31f goto pc+33
> R0=inv(id=0) R1=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372032559808512,
> umax_value=18446744069414584320,
> var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000000))
> R2=inv(id=0,umax_value=799,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff))
> R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0)
> R8=inv(id=0) R9=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1
> 59: (1f) r9 -= r8
> 60: (c7) r1 s>>= 32
> 61: (bf) r2 = r7
> 62: (0f) r2 += r1
> math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded
> min value is not allowed
> The failure is due to llvm compiler optimization where register "r2",
> which is a copy of "r1", is tested for condition while later on "r1"
> is used for map_ptr operation. The verifier is not able to track such
> inst sequence effectively.
>
> Without the "usize > max_len" condition, there is no llvm optimization
> and the below generated code passed verifier:
> 52: (85) call bpf_get_stack#65
> R0=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R1_w=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
> R2_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0) R3_w=inv800 R4_w=inv256
> R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0)
> R9_w=inv800 R10=fp0,call_-1
> 53: (b7) r1 = 0
> 54: (bf) r8 = r0
> 55: (67) r8 <<= 32
> 56: (c7) r8 s>>= 32
> 57: (6d) if r1 s> r8 goto pc+24
> R0=inv(id=0,umax_value=800) R1=inv0 R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
> R7=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=4,vs=1600,imm=0)
> R8=inv(id=0,umax_value=800,var_off=(0x0; 0x3ff)) R9=inv800
> R10=fp0,call_-1
> 58: (bf) r2 = r7
> 59: (0f) r2 += r8
> 60: (1f) r9 -= r8
> 61: (bf) r1 = r6
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index aba9425..3c8bb92 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ struct bpf_call_arg_meta {
> bool pkt_access;
> int regno;
> int access_size;
> + s64 msize_smax_value;
> + u64 msize_umax_value;
> };
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(bpf_verifier_lock);
> @@ -2027,6 +2029,14 @@ static int check_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno,
> err = check_helper_mem_access(env, regno - 1,
> reg->umax_value,
> zero_size_allowed, meta);
> +
> + if (!err && !!meta) {
Please drop !! in the above.
Also what happens when
if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
meta = NULL;
?
it seems two new fields of meta will stay zero initialized
that later do_refine_retval_range() will set R0->umax_value = 0
which seems incorrect.
> + /* remember the mem_size which may be used later
> + * to refine return values.
> + */
> + meta->msize_smax_value = reg->smax_value;
> + meta->msize_umax_value = reg->umax_value;
> + }
> }
>
> return err;
> @@ -2333,6 +2343,21 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type,
> + int func_id,
> + struct bpf_call_arg_meta *meta)
> +{
> + struct bpf_reg_state *ret_reg = ®s[BPF_REG_0];
> +
> + if (ret_type != RET_INTEGER ||
> + (func_id != BPF_FUNC_get_stack &&
> + func_id != BPF_FUNC_probe_read_str))
> + return;
> +
> + ret_reg->smax_value = meta->msize_smax_value;
> + ret_reg->umax_value = meta->msize_umax_value;
> +}
> +
> static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx)
> {
> const struct bpf_func_proto *fn = NULL;
> @@ -2456,6 +2481,8 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + do_refine_retval_range(regs, fn->ret_type, func_id, &meta);
> +
> err = check_map_func_compatibility(env, meta.map_ptr, func_id);
> if (err)
> return err;
> --
> 2.9.5
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists