netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Support for pointers beyond pkt

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:56:52 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Support for pointers beyond pkt_end.

On 11/12/20 8:16 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>>
>> This patch adds the verifier support to recognize inlined branch conditions.
>> The LLVM knows that the branch evaluates to the same value, but the verifier
>> couldn't track it. Hence causing valid programs to be rejected.
>> The potential LLVM workaround: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87428
>> can have undesired side effects, since LLVM doesn't know that
>> skb->data/data_end are being compared. LLVM has to introduce extra boolean
>> variable and use inline_asm trick to force easier for the verifier assembly.
>>
>> Instead teach the verifier to recognize that
>> r1 = skb->data;
>> r1 += 10;
>> r2 = skb->data_end;
>> if (r1 > r2) {
>>    here r1 points beyond packet_end and
>>    subsequent
>>    if (r1 > r2) // always evaluates to "true".
>> }
>>
>> Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/bpf_verifier.h |   2 +-
>>   kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Thanks, we can remove another set of inline asm logic.
> 
> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>   
>>   	if (pred >= 0) {
>> @@ -7517,7 +7601,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>   		 */
>>   		if (!__is_pointer_value(false, dst_reg))
>>   			err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->dst_reg);
>> -		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err)
>> +		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X && !err &&
>> +		    !__is_pointer_value(false, src_reg))
> 
> This could have been more specific with !type_is_pkt_pointer() correct? I
> think its fine as is though.
> 
>>   			err = mark_chain_precision(env, insn->src_reg);
>>   		if (err)
>>   			return err;

Given the reg->range could now be negative, I wonder whether for the regsafe()
pruning logic we should now better add a >=0 sanity check in there before we
attempt to test on rold->range > rcur->range?

Thanks,
Daniel