netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/3] net: flow_dissector: extend bpf flow dissector support with vnet hdr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210611064912.76eoangg4xgyb3v5@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:49:12 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Tanner Love <tannerlove.kernel@...il.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Tanner Love <tannerlove@...gle.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/3] net: flow_dissector: extend bpf flow
 dissector support with vnet hdr

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 02:38:51PM -0400, Tanner Love wrote:
[ ... ]

>  static int check_flow_keys_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off,
> -				  int size)
> +				  int size, enum bpf_access_type t)
>  {
>  	if (size < 0 || off < 0 ||
>  	    (u64)off + size > sizeof(struct bpf_flow_keys)) {
> @@ -3381,6 +3382,35 @@ static int check_flow_keys_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off,
>  			off, size);
>  		return -EACCES;
>  	}
> +
> +	switch (off) {
> +	case offsetof(struct bpf_flow_keys, vhdr):
It is not enough to stop writing to keys->vhdr.
e.g. what if off is offsetof(struct bpf_flow_keys, vhdr) + 1?

Will it break your existing use case if align access (off % size != 0) is
enforced now?  Take a look at bpf_skb_is_valid_access() in filter.c.
Otherwise, another way is needed here.

A nit. It is a good chance to move the new BTF_ID_LIST_SINGLE
and most of the check_flow_keys_access() to filter.c.
Take a look at check_sock_access().

> +		if (t == BPF_WRITE) {
> +			verbose(env,
> +				"invalid write to flow keys off=%d size=%d\n",
> +				off, size);
> +			return -EACCES;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (size != sizeof(__u64)) {
> +			verbose(env,
> +				"invalid access to flow keys off=%d size=%d\n",
> +				off, size);
> +			return -EACCES;
> +		}
> +
> +		break;
> +	case offsetof(struct bpf_flow_keys, vhdr_is_little_endian):
> +		if (t == BPF_WRITE) {
> +			verbose(env,
> +				"invalid write to flow keys off=%d size=%d\n",
> +				off, size);
> +			return -EACCES;
> +		}
> +
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -4053,6 +4083,8 @@ static int check_stack_access_within_bounds(
>  	return err;
>  }
>  
> +BTF_ID_LIST_SINGLE(bpf_flow_dissector_btf_ids, struct, virtio_net_hdr);
> +
>  /* check whether memory at (regno + off) is accessible for t = (read | write)
>   * if t==write, value_regno is a register which value is stored into memory
>   * if t==read, value_regno is a register which will receive the value from memory
> @@ -4217,9 +4249,19 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
>  			return -EACCES;
>  		}
>  
> -		err = check_flow_keys_access(env, off, size);
> -		if (!err && t == BPF_READ && value_regno >= 0)
> -			mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, value_regno);
> +		err = check_flow_keys_access(env, off, size, t);
> +		if (!err && t == BPF_READ && value_regno >= 0) {
> +			if (off == offsetof(struct bpf_flow_keys, vhdr)) {
> +				mark_reg_known_zero(env, regs, value_regno);
> +				regs[value_regno].type = PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL;
> +				regs[value_regno].btf = btf_vmlinux;
> +				regs[value_regno].btf_id = bpf_flow_dissector_btf_ids[0];
It needs to check "!bpf_flow_dissector_btf_ids[0]" in case
CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF is not enabled.  Take a look
at the RET_PTR_TO_BTF_ID case in verifier.c.