| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:07:31 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 346/350] bpf: Provide better register bounds after jmp32 instructions
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
[ Upstream commit 581738a681b6faae5725c2555439189ca81c0f1f ]
With latest llvm (trunk https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project),
test_progs, which has +alu32 enabled, failed for strobemeta.o.
The verifier output looks like below with edit to replace large
decimal numbers with hex ones.
193: (85) call bpf_probe_read_user_str#114
R0=inv(id=0)
194: (26) if w0 > 0x1 goto pc+4
R0_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0xffffffff00000001)
195: (6b) *(u16 *)(r7 +80) = r0
196: (bc) w6 = w0
R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
197: (67) r6 <<= 32
R6_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=0x7fffffff00000000,umax_value=0xffffffff00000000,
var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000000))
198: (77) r6 >>= 32
R6=inv(id=0,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
...
201: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r10 -416)
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=40,ks=4,vs=13872,imm=0)
202: (0f) r8 += r6
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=40,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
203: (07) r8 += 9696
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=9736,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
...
255: (bf) r1 = r8
R1_w=map_value(id=0,off=9736,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff))
...
257: (85) call bpf_probe_read_user_str#114
R1 unbounded memory access, make sure to bounds check any array access into a map
The value range for register r6 at insn 198 should be really just 0/1.
The umax_value=0xffffffff caused later verification failure.
After jmp instructions, the current verifier already tried to use just
obtained information to get better register range. The current mechanism is
for 64bit register only. This patch implemented to tighten the range
for 32bit sub-registers after jmp32 instructions.
With the patch, we have the below range ranges for the
above code sequence:
193: (85) call bpf_probe_read_user_str#114
R0=inv(id=0)
194: (26) if w0 > 0x1 goto pc+4
R0_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=0x7fffffff00000001,umax_value=0xffffffff00000001,
var_off=(0x0; 0xffffffff00000001))
195: (6b) *(u16 *)(r7 +80) = r0
196: (bc) w6 = w0
R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0xffffffff,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
197: (67) r6 <<= 32
R6_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=0x100000000,var_off=(0x0; 0x100000000))
198: (77) r6 >>= 32
R6=inv(id=0,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
...
201: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r10 -416)
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=40,ks=4,vs=13872,imm=0)
202: (0f) r8 += r6
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=40,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
203: (07) r8 += 9696
R8_w=map_value(id=0,off=9736,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
...
255: (bf) r1 = r8
R1_w=map_value(id=0,off=9736,ks=4,vs=13872,umax_value=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
...
257: (85) call bpf_probe_read_user_str#114
...
At insn 194, the register R0 has better var_off.mask and smax_value.
Especially, the var_off.mask ensures later lshift and rshift
maintains proper value range.
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191121170650.449030-1-yhs@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 87181cd5bafd7..df033c5877cbe 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -978,6 +978,17 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->umax_value));
}
+static void __reg_bound_offset32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+ u64 mask = 0xffffFFFF;
+ struct tnum range = tnum_range(reg->umin_value & mask,
+ reg->umax_value & mask);
+ struct tnum lo32 = tnum_cast(reg->var_off, 4);
+ struct tnum hi32 = tnum_lshift(tnum_rshift(reg->var_off, 32), 32);
+
+ reg->var_off = tnum_or(hi32, tnum_intersect(lo32, range));
+}
+
/* Reset the min/max bounds of a register */
static void __mark_reg_unbounded(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
@@ -5433,6 +5444,10 @@ static void reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
/* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
__reg_bound_offset(false_reg);
__reg_bound_offset(true_reg);
+ if (is_jmp32) {
+ __reg_bound_offset32(false_reg);
+ __reg_bound_offset32(true_reg);
+ }
/* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
* slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
* then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
@@ -5542,6 +5557,10 @@ static void reg_set_min_max_inv(struct bpf_reg_state *true_reg,
/* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
__reg_bound_offset(false_reg);
__reg_bound_offset(true_reg);
+ if (is_jmp32) {
+ __reg_bound_offset32(false_reg);
+ __reg_bound_offset32(true_reg);
+ }
/* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
* slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
* then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists