netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning

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: <20190321093304.GA1001@Nover>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:33:06 +0100
From:   Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, xiao.han@...nge.com,
        paul.chaignon@...il.com, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:31PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 3/20/19 5:57 AM, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > The BPF verifier checks the maximum number of call stack frames twice,
> > first in the main CFG traversal (do_check) and then in a subsequent
> > traversal (check_max_stack_depth).  If the second check fails, it logs a
> > 'verifier bug' warning and errors out, as the number of call stack frames
> > should have been verified already.
> > 
> > However, the second check may fail without indicating a verifier bug: if
> > the excessive function calls reside in dead code, the main CFG traversal
> > may not visit them; the subsequent traversal visits all instructions,
> > including dead code.
> > 
> > This case raises the question of how invalid dead code should be treated.
> 
> Maybe we should do this check after dead code elimination to be 
> consistent with do_check? There could some other kinds of illegal stuff

To be clear, are you suggesting we run check_max_stack_depth after the
dead code elimination?  That would indeed solve this issue, but Jakub made
the exact reverse change not so long ago, in 9b38c40 ("bpf: verifier:
reorder stack size check with dead code sanitization").  I think the idea
was to avoid having code modifications in between code checks.

> in the dead code, e.g., illegal/unsupported helpers, etc. I suppose we 
> did not warn or reject the program, right?

As far as I know, we do not warn or reject the programs for other illegal
stuff found in dead code, no.

> 
> > The first patch implements the conservative option and rejects such code;
> > the second adds a test case.
> > 
> > Paul Chaignon (2):
> >    bpf: remove incorrect 'verifier bug' warning
> >    selftests/bpf: test case for invalid call stack in dead code
> > 
> >   kernel/bpf/verifier.c                        |  5 +--
> >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >