From c366287ebd698ef5e3de300d90cd62ee9ee7373e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:43:23 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] bpf: fix divides by zero Divides by zero are not nice, lets avoid them if possible. Also do_div() seems not needed when dealing with 32bit operands, but this seems a minor detail. Fixes: bd4cf0ed331a ("net: filter: rework/optimize internal BPF interpreter's instruction set") Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Reported-by: syzbot Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/core.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 51ec2dda7f08..7949e8b8f94e 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -956,7 +956,7 @@ select_insn: DST = tmp; CONT; ALU_MOD_X: - if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) + if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; tmp = (u32) DST; DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ select_insn: DST = div64_u64(DST, SRC); CONT; ALU_DIV_X: - if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) + if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; tmp = (u32) DST; do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); From 68fda450a7df51cff9e5a4d4a4d9d0d5f2589153 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:59:52 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] bpf: fix 32-bit divide by zero due to some JITs doing if (src_reg == 0) check in 64-bit mode for div/mod operations mask upper 32-bits of src register before doing the check Fixes: 622582786c9e ("net: filter: x86: internal BPF JIT") Fixes: 7a12b5031c6b ("sparc64: Add eBPF JIT.") Reported-by: syzbot+48340bb518e88849e2e3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ net/core/filter.c | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 20eb04fd155e..b7448347e6b6 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -4445,6 +4445,24 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) int i, cnt, delta = 0; for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++, insn++) { + if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X)) { + /* due to JIT bugs clear upper 32-bits of src register + * before div/mod operation + */ + insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV32_REG(insn->src_reg, insn->src_reg); + insn_buf[1] = *insn; + cnt = 2; + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt); + if (!new_prog) + return -ENOMEM; + + delta += cnt - 1; + env->prog = prog = new_prog; + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta; + continue; + } + if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) continue; diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c index d339ef170df6..1c0eb436671f 100644 --- a/net/core/filter.c +++ b/net/core/filter.c @@ -458,6 +458,10 @@ do_pass: convert_bpf_extensions(fp, &insn)) break; + if (fp->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) || + fp->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X)) + *insn++ = BPF_MOV32_REG(BPF_REG_X, BPF_REG_X); + *insn = BPF_RAW_INSN(fp->code, BPF_REG_A, BPF_REG_X, 0, fp->k); break; From a2284d912bfc865cdca4c00488e08a3550f9a405 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:46:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] bpf, arm64: fix stack_depth tracking in combination with tail calls Using dynamic stack_depth tracking in arm64 JIT is currently broken in combination with tail calls. In prologue, we cache ctx->stack_size and adjust SP reg for setting up function call stack, and tearing it down again in epilogue. Problem is that when doing a tail call, the cached ctx->stack_size might not be the same. One way to fix the problem with minimal overhead is to re-adjust SP in emit_bpf_tail_call() and properly adjust it to the current program's ctx->stack_size. Tested on Cavium ThunderX ARMv8. Fixes: f1c9eed7f437 ("bpf, arm64: take advantage of stack_depth tracking") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index ba38d403abb2..bb32f7f6dd0f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -148,7 +148,8 @@ static inline int epilogue_offset(const struct jit_ctx *ctx) /* Stack must be multiples of 16B */ #define STACK_ALIGN(sz) (((sz) + 15) & ~15) -#define PROLOGUE_OFFSET 8 +/* Tail call offset to jump into */ +#define PROLOGUE_OFFSET 7 static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) { @@ -200,19 +201,19 @@ static int build_prologue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) /* Initialize tail_call_cnt */ emit(A64_MOVZ(1, tcc, 0, 0), ctx); - /* 4 byte extra for skb_copy_bits buffer */ - ctx->stack_size = prog->aux->stack_depth + 4; - ctx->stack_size = STACK_ALIGN(ctx->stack_size); - - /* Set up function call stack */ - emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx); - cur_offset = ctx->idx - idx0; if (cur_offset != PROLOGUE_OFFSET) { pr_err_once("PROLOGUE_OFFSET = %d, expected %d!\n", cur_offset, PROLOGUE_OFFSET); return -1; } + + /* 4 byte extra for skb_copy_bits buffer */ + ctx->stack_size = prog->aux->stack_depth + 4; + ctx->stack_size = STACK_ALIGN(ctx->stack_size); + + /* Set up function call stack */ + emit(A64_SUB_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx); return 0; } @@ -260,11 +261,12 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(struct jit_ctx *ctx) emit(A64_LDR64(prg, tmp, prg), ctx); emit(A64_CBZ(1, prg, jmp_offset), ctx); - /* goto *(prog->bpf_func + prologue_size); */ + /* goto *(prog->bpf_func + prologue_offset); */ off = offsetof(struct bpf_prog, bpf_func); emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, off, ctx); emit(A64_LDR64(tmp, prg, tmp), ctx); emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tmp, tmp, sizeof(u32) * PROLOGUE_OFFSET), ctx); + emit(A64_ADD_I(1, A64_SP, A64_SP, ctx->stack_size), ctx); emit(A64_BR(tmp), ctx); /* out: */ From f37a8cb84cce18762e8f86a70bd6a49a66ab964c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:30:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd Alexei found that verifier does not reject stores into context via BPF_ST instead of BPF_STX. And while looking at it, we also should not allow XADD variant of BPF_STX. The context rewriter is only assuming either BPF_LDX_MEM- or BPF_STX_MEM-type operations, thus reject anything other than that so that assumptions in the rewriter properly hold. Add test cases as well for BPF selftests. Fixes: d691f9e8d440 ("bpf: allow programs to write to certain skb fields") Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 ++++++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index b7448347e6b6..eb062b0fbf27 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -978,6 +978,13 @@ static bool is_pointer_value(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) return __is_pointer_value(env->allow_ptr_leaks, cur_regs(env) + regno); } +static bool is_ctx_reg(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) +{ + const struct bpf_reg_state *reg = cur_regs(env) + regno; + + return reg->type == PTR_TO_CTX; +} + static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int off, int size, bool strict) @@ -1258,6 +1265,12 @@ static int check_xadd(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct bpf_ins return -EACCES; } + if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_XADD stores into R%d context is not allowed\n", + insn->dst_reg); + return -EACCES; + } + /* check whether atomic_add can read the memory */ err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, -1); @@ -3993,6 +4006,12 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (err) return err; + if (is_ctx_reg(env, insn->dst_reg)) { + verbose(env, "BPF_ST stores into R%d context is not allowed\n", + insn->dst_reg); + return -EACCES; + } + /* check that memory (dst_reg + off) is writeable */ err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 6bafa5456568..67e7c41674d2 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -2592,6 +2592,29 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = ACCEPT, .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, }, + { + "context stores via ST", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark), 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr = "BPF_ST stores into R1 context is not allowed", + .result = REJECT, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, + }, + { + "context stores via XADD", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, + BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark), 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R1 context is not allowed", + .result = REJECT, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, + }, { "direct packet access: test1", .insns = { @@ -4312,7 +4335,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .fixup_map1 = { 2 }, .errstr_unpriv = "R2 leaks addr into mem", .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .result = ACCEPT, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R1 context is not allowed", }, { "leak pointer into ctx 2", @@ -4326,7 +4350,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .errstr_unpriv = "R10 leaks addr into mem", .result_unpriv = REJECT, - .result = ACCEPT, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R1 context is not allowed", }, { "leak pointer into ctx 3", From 6f16101e6a8b4324c36e58a29d9e0dbb287cdedb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:15:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments syzkaller generated a BPF proglet and triggered a warning with the following: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (d5) if r0 s<= 0x0 goto pc+0 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 2: (1f) r0 -= r1 R0=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds What happens is that in the first insn, r0's min/max value are both 0 due to the immediate assignment, later in the jsle test the bounds are updated for the min value in the false path, meaning, they yield smin_val = 1, smax_val = 0, and when ctx pointer is subtracted from r0, verifier bails out with the internal error and throwing a WARN since smin_val != smax_val for the known constant. For min_val > max_val scenario it means that reg_set_min_max() and reg_set_min_max_inv() (which both refine existing bounds) demonstrated that such branch cannot be taken at runtime. In above scenario for the case where it will be taken, the existing [0, 0] bounds are kept intact. Meaning, the rejection is not due to a verifier internal error, and therefore the WARN() is not necessary either. We could just reject such cases in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() when either known scalars have smin_val != smax_val or umin_val != umax_val or any scalar reg with bounds smin_val > smax_val or umin_val > umax_val. However, there may be a small risk of breakage of buggy programs, so handle this more gracefully and in adjust_{ptr,scalar}_min_max_vals() just taint the dst reg as unknown scalar when we see ops with such kind of src reg. Reported-by: syzbot+6d362cadd45dc0a12ba4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 27 +++-- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 123 +++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index eb062b0fbf27..13551e623501 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1895,17 +1895,13 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg = ®s[dst]; - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (smin_val != smax_val))) { - print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state); - verbose(env, - "verifier internal error: known but bad sbounds\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(known && (umin_val != umax_val))) { - print_verifier_state(env, env->cur_state); - verbose(env, - "verifier internal error: known but bad ubounds\n"); - return -EINVAL; + if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || + smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { + /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from + * e.g. dead branches. + */ + __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); + return 0; } if (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) != BPF_ALU64) { @@ -2097,6 +2093,15 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, src_known = tnum_is_const(src_reg.var_off); dst_known = tnum_is_const(dst_reg->var_off); + if ((src_known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || + smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { + /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from + * e.g. dead branches. + */ + __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); + return 0; + } + if (!src_known && opcode != BPF_ADD && opcode != BPF_SUB && opcode != BPF_AND) { __mark_reg_unknown(dst_reg); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 67e7c41674d2..5ed4175c4ff8 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -6732,7 +6732,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7), }, .fixup_map1 = { 4 }, - .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -8633,6 +8633,127 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 2", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 1, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 4", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 5", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 6", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 7", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, + offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 8", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, ~0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, + offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 9", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar", + }, + { + "check deducing bounds from const, 10", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0), + /* Marks reg as unknown. */ + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "math between ctx pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed", + }, { "bpf_exit with invalid return code. test1", .insns = {