netdev - [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Test indirect var

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: <b091c4c38afea6dc9ba015e0e2174b3d641ae846.1554236245.git.rdna@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:19:58 -0700
From:   Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
To:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Test indirect var_off stack access in unpriv mode

Test that verifier rejects indirect stack access with variable offset in
unprivileged mode and accepts same code in privileged mode.

Since pointer arithmetics is prohibited in unprivileged mode verifier
should reject the program even before it gets to helper call that uses
variable offset, at the time when that variable offset is trying to be
constructed.

Example of output:
  # ./test_verifier
  ...
  #859/u indirect variable-offset stack access, priv vs unpriv OK
  #859/p indirect variable-offset stack access, priv vs unpriv OK

Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>
---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c  | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
index 7d095bd04636..c83d9942c1bc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
@@ -114,6 +114,33 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
 },
+{
+	"indirect variable-offset stack access, priv vs unpriv",
+	.insns = {
+	/* Fill the top 16 bytes of the stack. */
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, 0),
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+	/* Get an unknown value. */
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+	/* Make it small and 4-byte aligned. */
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 4),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, 16),
+	/* Add it to fp.  We now have either fp-12 or fp-16, we don't know
+	 * which, but either way it points to initialized stack.
+	 */
+	BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+	/* Dereference it indirectly. */
+	BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+	BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 6 },
+	.errstr_unpriv = "R2 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, prohibited for !root",
+	.result_unpriv = REJECT,
+	.result = ACCEPT,
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
+},
 {
 	"indirect variable-offset stack access, uninitialized",
 	.insns = {
-- 
2.17.1