netdev - [bpf-next PATCH 10/10] bpf: test_verifier, add alu32 bounds tracking tests

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: <158507165554.15666.6019652542965367828.stgit@john-Precision-5820-Tower>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:40:55 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     ecree@...arflare.com, yhs@...com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: [bpf-next PATCH 10/10] bpf: test_verifier,
 add alu32 bounds tracking tests

Its possible to have divergent ALU32 and ALU64 bounds when using JMP32
instructins and ALU64 arithmatic operations. Sometimes the clang will
even generate this code. Because the case is a bit tricky lets add
a specific test for it.

Here is  pseudocode asm version to illustrate the idea,

 1 r0 = 0xffffffff00000001;
 2 if w0 > 1 goto %l[fail];
 3 r0 += 1
 5 if w0 > 2 goto %l[fail]
 6 exit

The intent here is the verifier will fail the load if the 32bit bounds
are not tracked correctly through ALU64 op. Similarly we can check the
64bit bounds are correctly zero extended after ALU32 ops.

 1 r0 = 0xffffffff00000001;
 2 w0 += 1
 2 if r0 < 0xffffffff00000001 goto %l[fail];
 6 exit

The above will fail if we do not correctly zero extend 64bit bounds
after 32bit op.

Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c |   39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
index cf72fcc..4d0d095 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
@@ -500,3 +500,42 @@
 	.errstr = "map_value pointer and 1000000000000",
 	.result = REJECT
 },
+{
+	"bounds check mixed 32bit and 64bit arithmatic. test1",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 32),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+	/* r1 = 0xffffFFFF00000001 */
+	BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, 1, 3),
+	/* check ALU64 op keeps 32bit bounds */
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+	BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, 2, 1),
+	BPF_JMP_A(1),
+	/* invalid ldx if bounds are lost above */
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.result = ACCEPT
+},
+{
+	"bounds check mixed 32bit and 64bit arithmatic. test2",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 32),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+	/* r1 = 0xffffFFFF00000001 */
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 3),
+	/* r1 = 0x2 */
+	BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 1),
+	/* check ALU32 op zero extends 64bit bounds */
+	BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 1),
+	BPF_JMP_A(1),
+	/* invalid ldx if bounds are lost above */
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.result = ACCEPT
+},