| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3ed8b579-8342-4d74-9050-b0bf6afe5ab3@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:06:35 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>, Eduard Zingerman
<eddyz87@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
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>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/11] bpf: Fix a false rejection caused by
AND operation
On 4/23/24 7:25 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>> On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
>>>>> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version
>>>>> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts
>>>>> is rejected by the verifier, and the log says:
>>>>>
>>>>> 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t
>>>>> fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>>>>> 0: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
>>>>> 1: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)
>>>>> func 'bpf_lsm_bpf_map' arg0 has btf_id 916 type STRUCT 'bpf_map'
>>>>> 2: R1=ctx() R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map()
>>>>> ; if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input) @
>>>>> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:29
>>>>> 2: (18) r3 = 0xffff9742c0951a00 ;
>>>>> R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
>>>>> 4: (5d) if r2 != r3 goto pc+4 ;
>>>>> R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map() R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t
>>>>> fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>>>>> 5: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) ; R0_w=scalar() R1=ctx()
>>>>> ; if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:32
>>>>> 6: (67) r0 <<= 62 ;
>>>>> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xc000000000000000,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=0,var_off=(0x0;
>>>>> 0xc000000000000000))
>>>>> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63 ;
>>>>> R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
>>>>> ; @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:0
>>>>> 8: (57) r0 &= -13 ;
>>>>> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0;
>>>>> 0xfffffffffffffff3))
>>>>> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t
>>>>> fmode) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
>>>>> 9: (95) exit
>>>>>
>>>>> And here is the C code of the prog.
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC("lsm/bpf_map")
>>>>> int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE)
>>>>> return -EACCES;
>>>>>
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clear that the prog can only return either 0 or -EACCESS,
>>>>> and both
>>>>> values are legal.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why is it rejected by the verifier?
>>>>>
>>>>> The verifier log shows that the second if and return value setting
>>>>> statements in the prog is optimized to bitwise operations "r0 s>>=
>>>>> 63"
>>>>> and "r0 &= -13". The verifier correctly deduces that the the value of
>>>>> r0 is in the range [-1, 0] after verifing instruction "r0 s>>= 63".
>>>>> But when the verifier proceeds to verify instruction "r0 &= -13", it
>>>>> fails to deduce the correct value range of r0.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63 ;
>>>>> R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
>>>>> 8: (57) r0 &= -13 ;
>>>>> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0;
>>>>> 0xfffffffffffffff3))
>>>>>
>>>>> So why the verifier fails to deduce the result of 'r0 &= -13'?
>>>>>
>>>>> The verifier uses tnum to track values, and the two ranges "[-1,
>>>>> 0]" and
>>>>> "[0, -1ULL]" are encoded to the same tnum. When verifing instruction
>>>>> "r0 &= -13", the verifier erroneously deduces the result from
>>>>> "[0, -1ULL] AND -13", which is out of the expected return range
>>>>> [-4095, 0].
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix it, this patch simply adds a special SCALAR32 case for the
>>>>> verifier. That is, when the source operand of the AND instruction is
>>>>> a constant and the destination operand changes from negative to
>>>>> non-negative and falls in range [-256, 256], deduce the result range
>>>>> by enumerating all possible AND results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay, I had to think about this issue a bit.
>>>> I found the clang transformation that generates the pattern this patch
>>>> tries to handle.
>>>> It is located in DAGCombiner::SimplifySelectCC() method (see [1]).
>>>> The transformation happens as a part of DAG to DAG rewrites
>>>> (LLVM uses several internal representations:
>>>> - generic optimizer uses LLVM IR, most of the work is done
>>>> using this representation;
>>>> - before instruction selection IR is converted to Selection DAG,
>>>> some optimizations are applied at this stage,
>>>> all such optimizations are a set of pattern replacements;
>>>> - Selection DAG is converted to machine code, some optimizations
>>>> are applied at the machine code level).
>>>>
>>>> Full pattern is described as follows:
>>>>
>>>> // fold (select_cc seteq (and x, y), 0, 0, A) -> (and (sra (shl
>>>> x)) A)
>>>> // where y is has a single bit set.
>>>> // A plaintext description would be, we can turn the SELECT_CC
>>>> into an AND
>>>> // when the condition can be materialized as an all-ones
>>>> register. Any
>>>> // single bit-test can be materialized as an all-ones register with
>>>> // shift-left and shift-right-arith.
>>>>
>>>> For this particular test case the DAG is converted as follows:
>>>>
>>>> .---------------- lhs The meaning of
>>>> this select_cc is:
>>>> | .------- rhs `lhs == rhs ?
>>>> true value : false value`
>>>> | | .----- true value
>>>> | | | .-- false value
>>>> v v v v
>>>> (select_cc seteq (and X 2) 0 0 -13)
>>>> ^
>>>> -> '---------------.
>>>> (and (sra (sll X 62) 63) |
>>>> -13) |
>>>> |
>>>> Before pattern is applied, it checks that second 'and' operand has
>>>> only one bit set, (which is true for '2').
>>>>
>>>> The pattern itself generates logical shift left / arithmetic shift
>>>> right pair, that ensures that result is either all ones (-1) or all
>>>> zeros (0). Hence, applying 'and' to shifts result and false value
>>>> generates a correct result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your detailed and invaluable explanation!
>>
>> Thanks Eduard for detailed explanation. It looks like we could
>> resolve this issue without adding too much complexity to verifier.
>> Also, this code pattern above seems generic enough to be worthwhile
>> with verifier change.
>>
>> Kuohai, please added detailed explanation (as described by Eduard)
>> in the commit message.
>>
>
> Sure, already added, the commit message and the change now is like this:
>
> ---
>
> bpf: Fix a false rejection caused by AND operation
>
> With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version
> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts
> is rejected by the verifier, and the log says:
>
> 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @
> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> 0: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0_w=0
> 1: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +0)
> func 'bpf_lsm_bpf_map' arg0 has btf_id 916 type STRUCT 'bpf_map'
> 2: R1=ctx() R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map()
> ; if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input) @
> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:29
> 2: (18) r3 = 0xffff9742c0951a00 ;
> R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
> 4: (5d) if r2 != r3 goto pc+4 ; R2_w=trusted_ptr_bpf_map()
> R3_w=map_ptr(map=data_input,ks=4,vs=4)
> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @
> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> 5: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) ; R0_w=scalar() R1=ctx()
> ; if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE) @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:32
> 6: (67) r0 <<= 62 ;
> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x4000000000000000,umax=0xc000000000000000,smin32=0,smax32=umax32=0,var_off=(0x0;
> 0xc000000000000000))
> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63 ;
> R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
> ; @ test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:0
> 8: (57) r0 &= -13 ;
> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0;
> 0xfffffffffffffff3))
> ; int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode) @
> test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts.c:27
> 9: (95) exit
>
> And here is the C code of the prog.
>
> SEC("lsm/bpf_map")
> int BPF_PROG(check_access, struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode)
> {
> if (map != (struct bpf_map *)&data_input)
> return 0;
>
> if (fmode & FMODE_WRITE)
> return -EACCES;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> It is clear that the prog can only return either 0 or -EACCESS,
> and both
> values are legal.
>
> So why is it rejected by the verifier?
>
> The verifier log shows that the second if and return value setting
> statements in the prog is optimized to bitwise operations "r0 s>>=
> 63"
> and "r0 &= -13". The verifier correctly deduces that the the value of
> r0 is in the range [-1, 0] after verifing instruction "r0 s>>= 63".
> But when the verifier proceeds to verify instruction "r0 &= -13", it
> fails to deduce the correct value range of r0.
>
> 7: (c7) r0 s>>= 63 ;
> R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-1,smax=smax32=0)
> 8: (57) r0 &= -13 ;
> R0_w=scalar(smax=0x7ffffffffffffff3,umax=0xfffffffffffffff3,smax32=0x7ffffff3,umax32=0xfffffff3,var_off=(0x0;
> 0xfffffffffffffff3))
>
> So why the verifier fails to deduce the result of 'r0 &= -13'?
>
> The verifier uses tnum to track values, and the two ranges "[-1,
> 0]" and
> "[0, -1ULL]" are encoded to the same tnum. When verifing instruction
> "r0 &= -13", the verifier erroneously deduces the result from
> "[0, -1ULL] AND -13", which is out of the expected return range
> [-4095, 0].
>
> As explained by Eduard in [0], the clang transformation that
> generates this
> pattern is located in DAGCombiner::SimplifySelectCC() method (see
> [1]).
>
> The transformation happens as a part of DAG to DAG rewrites
> (LLVM uses several internal representations:
> - generic optimizer uses LLVM IR, most of the work is done
> using this representation;
> - before instruction selection IR is converted to Selection DAG,
> some optimizations are applied at this stage,
> all such optimizations are a set of pattern replacements;
> - Selection DAG is converted to machine code, some optimizations
> are applied at the machine code level).
>
> Full pattern is described as follows:
>
> // fold (select_cc seteq (and x, y), 0, 0, A) -> (and (sra (shl
> x)) A)
> // where y is has a single bit set.
> // A plaintext description would be, we can turn the SELECT_CC
> into an AND
> // when the condition can be materialized as an all-ones
> register. Any
> // single bit-test can be materialized as an all-ones register with
> // shift-left and shift-right-arith.
>
> For this particular test case the DAG is converted as follows:
>
> .---------------- lhs The meaning of
> this select_cc is:
> | .------- rhs `lhs == rhs ?
> true value : false value`
> | | .----- true value
> | | | .-- false value
> v v v v
> (select_cc seteq (and X 2) 0 0 -13)
> ^
> -> '---------------.
> (and (sra (sll X 62) 63) |
> -13) |
> |
> Before pattern is applied, it checks that second 'and' operand has
> only one bit set, (which is true for '2').
>
> The pattern itself generates logical shift left / arithmetic shift
> right pair, that ensures that result is either all ones (-1) or all
> zeros (0). Hence, applying 'and' to shifts result and false value
> generates a correct result.
>
> As suggested by Eduard, this patch makes a special case for source
> or destination register of '&=' operation being in range [-1, 0].
>
> Meaning that one of the '&=' operands is either:
> - all ones, in which case the counterpart is the result of the
> operation;
> - all zeros, in which case zero is the result of the operation.
>
> And MIN and MAX values could be derived based on above two
> observations.
>
> [0]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e62e2971301ca7f2e9eb74fc500c520285cad8f5.camel@gmail.com/
> [1]
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/4523a267829c807f3fc8fab8e5e9613985a51565/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
>
> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 640747b53745..30c551d39329 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -13374,6 +13374,24 @@ static void scalar32_min_max_and(struct
> bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> dst_reg->u32_min_value = var32_off.value;
> dst_reg->u32_max_value = min(dst_reg->u32_max_value, umax_val);
>
> + /* Special case: src_reg is known and dst_reg is in range [-1,
> 0] */
> + if (src_known &&
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && dst_reg->s32_max_value
> == 0 &&
> + dst_reg->smin_value == -1 && dst_reg->smax_value == 0) {
do we need to check dst_reg->smin_value/smax_value here? They should not impact
final dst_reg->s32_{min,max}_value computation, right?
Similarly, for later 64bit min/max and, 32bit value does not really matter.
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32, src_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32,
> src_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Special case: dst_reg is known and src_reg is in range [-1,
> 0] */
> + if (dst_known &&
> + src_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && src_reg->s32_max_value
> == 0 &&
> + src_reg->smin_value == -1 && src_reg->smax_value == 0) {
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value = min_t(s32,
> dst_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->s32_max_value = max_t(s32,
> dst_reg->s32_min_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* Safe to set s32 bounds by casting u32 result into s32 when u32
> * doesn't cross sign boundary. Otherwise set s32 bounds to
> unbounded.
> */
> @@ -13404,6 +13422,24 @@ static void scalar_min_max_and(struct
> bpf_reg_state *dst_reg,
> dst_reg->umin_value = dst_reg->var_off.value;
> dst_reg->umax_value = min(dst_reg->umax_value, umax_val);
>
> + /* Special case: src_reg is known and dst_reg is in range [-1,
> 0] */
> + if (src_known &&
> + dst_reg->smin_value == -1 && dst_reg->smax_value == 0 &&
> + dst_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && dst_reg->s32_max_value
> == 0) {
> + dst_reg->smin_value = min_t(s64, src_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->smax_value = max_t(s64, src_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Special case: dst_reg is known and src_reg is in range [-1,
> 0] */
> + if (dst_known &&
> + src_reg->smin_value == -1 && src_reg->smax_value == 0 &&
> + src_reg->s32_min_value == -1 && src_reg->s32_max_value
> == 0) {
> + dst_reg->smin_value = min_t(s64, dst_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + dst_reg->smax_value = max_t(s64, dst_reg->smin_value, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /* Safe to set s64 bounds by casting u64 result into s64 when u64
> * doesn't cross sign boundary. Otherwise set s64 bounds to
> unbounded.
> */
>
>>>
>>>> In my opinion the approach taken by this patch is sub-optimal:
>>>> - 512 iterations is too much;
>>>> - this does not cover all code that could be generated by the above
>>>> mentioned LLVM transformation
>>>> (e.g. second 'and' operand could be 1 << 16).
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I suggest to make a special case for source or dst register
>>>> of '&=' operation being in range [-1,0].
>>>> Meaning that one of the '&=' operands is either:
>>>> - all ones, in which case the counterpart is the result of the
>>>> operation;
>>>> - all zeros, in which case zero is the result of the operation;
>>>> - derive MIN and MAX values based on above two observations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Totally agree, I'll cook a new patch as you suggested.
>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/4523a267829c807f3fc8fab8e5e9613985a51565/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp#L5391
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists