netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf RESEND 2/4] bpf: Remove size check for sk in bpf_skb_is_valid

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: <dd998453-1baf-272a-8130-76529d338f2f@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:22:04 +0800
From:   Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        Delyan Kratunov <delyank@...com>,
        Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf RESEND 2/4] bpf: Remove size check for sk in
 bpf_skb_is_valid_access for 32-bit architecture

Hello,

On 2022/11/5 7:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Alexei Starovoitov
>> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:23 AM Russell King (Oracle)
>>> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 05:21:16PM +0800, Yang Jihong wrote:
>>>>> The error code -EACCES is returned when bpf prog is tested in 32-bit environment,
>>>>> This is because bpf_object__relocate modifies the instruction to change memory
>>>>> size to 4 bytes, as shown in the following messages:
>>>>>
>>>>> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: matching candidate #0 <byte_off> [18342] struct __sk_buff.sk (0:30:0 @ offset 168)
>>>>> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) off 168 -> 168
>>>>> libbpf: prog 'kfunc_call_test1': relo #2: patched insn #1 (LDX/ST/STX) mem_sz 8 -> 4
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, the bpf_skb_is_valid_access check fails. For 32-bit architecture,
>>>>> unnecessary checks need to be deleted.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the purpose of this check to ensure that the entire pointer is
>>>> written, and BPF can't write half of it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>        case offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk):
>>>>> -             if (type == BPF_WRITE || size != sizeof(__u64))
>>>>> -                     return false;
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't "(size != sizeof(struct bpf_sock *) && size != sizeof(__u64))"
>>>> be more appropriate here, so 32-bit can only write the 32-bit pointer
>>>> or the full 64-bit value, and 64-bit can only write the 64-bit pointer?
>>>> Or is there a reason not to? bpf folk?
>>>
>>> You're correct. The patch is completely wrong.
>>> The bug is elsewhere.
>>
>> So I looked at this a bit (and replied to the old version of this
>> patch). What happens in the kernel is that we expect 64-bit load but
>> rewrite it to 32-bit load on 32-bit architectures (because we just use
>> sizeof(struct sk_buff, sk) which is 4 bytes on 32-bit arch.
>>
>> The problem here is that libbpf adjusts such pointer accesses from
>> 8-byte read to 4-byte reads for preserve_access_index (because libbpf
>> sees that pointer is really 4 byte long), which is what we actually
>> want in the general case. Here the assumption was made before CO-RE
>> that __sk_buff is a stable (and fake) UAPI and the correct BPF program
>> will access sk as a 64-bit pointer because BPF-side pointers always
>> appear as 64-bit.
>>
>> But from a correctness standpoint I think it should be fine to enable
>> both 32- and 64-bit loads for such pointers in __sk_buff for 32-bit
>> host arch. This will work well with CO-RE and will be correctly
>> rewritten to 32-bit or 64-bit accesses, depending on host
>> architecture.
>>
>> We should still reject 32-bit load on 64-bit host arch, though.
> 
> Replied in the other thread as well :)
> The CO_RE screws up access here.
> Since it's a load of a pointer the verifier has to see it as a 8-byte load.
> When CO-RE converts it to 4 byte the verifier won't recognize it
> as a pointer load anymore.
> We cannot easily convert 64-bit BPF ISA into 32-bit.
> It's a massive amount of work.
> .

 From the above discussion, there are two different solutions:
1. Modify bpf_skb_is_valid_access to ensure that 32-bit can only load 
the 32-bit pointer or the full 64-bit value, and 64-bit can only load 
the 64-bit pointer
2. Modify libbpf, CO_RE skips adjust load's mem size and retains the 
8-byte load.
The two fixes will be added in the next version.
Please review the solution to be selected.

Thanks,
Yang