user/sven/linux.git/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h, branch v4.9.243

bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack

2018-12-08T12:05:10Z

commit af86ca4e3088fe5eacf2f7e58c01fa68ca067672 upstream. Detect code patterns where malicious 'speculative store bypass' can be used and sanitize such patterns. 39: (bf) r3 = r10 40: (07) r3 += -216 41: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) // slow read 42: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -72) = 0 // verifier inserts this instruction 43: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +0) = r3 // this store becomes slow due to r8 44: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r6 +0) // cpu speculatively executes this load 45: (71) r2 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0) // speculatively arbitrary 'load byte' // is now sanitized Above code after x86 JIT becomes: e5: mov %rbp,%rdx e8: add $0xffffffffffffff28,%rdx ef: mov 0x0(%r13),%r14 f3: movq $0x0,-0x48(%rbp) fb: mov %rdx,0x0(%r14) ff: mov 0x0(%rbx),%rdi 103: movzbq 0x0(%rdi),%rsi Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner [bwh: Backported to 4.9: - Add bpf_verifier_env parameter to check_stack_write() - Look up stack slot_types with state->stack_slot_type[] rather than state->stack[].slot_type[] - Drop bpf_verifier_env argument to verbose() - Adjust context] Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation

2018-01-17T08:38:55Z

commit b2157399cc9898260d6031c5bfe45fe137c1fbe7 upstream. Under speculation, CPUs may mis-predict branches in bounds checks. Thus, memory accesses under a bounds check may be speculated even if the bounds check fails, providing a primitive for building a side channel. To avoid leaking kernel data round up array-based maps and mask the index after bounds check, so speculated load with out of bounds index will load either valid value from the array or zero from the padded area. Unconditionally mask index for all array types even when max_entries are not rounded to power of 2 for root user. When map is created by unpriv user generate a sequence of bpf insns that includes AND operation to make sure that JITed code includes the same 'index & index_mask' operation. If prog_array map is created by unpriv user replace bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index); with if (index >= max_entries) { index &= map->index_mask; bpf_tail_call(ctx, map, index); } (along with roundup to power 2) to prevent out-of-bounds speculation. There is secondary redundant 'if (index >= max_entries)' in the interpreter and in all JITs, but they can be optimized later if necessary. Other array-like maps (cpumap, devmap, sockmap, perf_event_array, cgroup_array) cannot be used by unpriv, so no changes there. That fixes bpf side of "Variant 1: bounds check bypass (CVE-2017-5753)" on all architectures with and without JIT. v2->v3: Daniel noticed that attack potentially can be crafted via syscall commands without loading the program, so add masking to those paths as well. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: John Fastabend Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Jiri Slaby [ Backported to 4.9 - gregkh ] Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix branch pruning logic

2017-12-25T13:23:47Z

From: Alexei Starovoitov [ Upstream commit c131187db2d3fa2f8bf32fdf4e9a4ef805168467 ] when the verifier detects that register contains a runtime constant and it's compared with another constant it will prune exploration of the branch that is guaranteed not to be taken at runtime. This is all correct, but malicious program may be constructed in such a way that it always has a constant comparison and the other branch is never taken under any conditions. In this case such path through the program will not be explored by the verifier. It won't be taken at run-time either, but since all instructions are JITed the malicious program may cause JITs to complain about using reserved fields, etc. To fix the issue we have to track the instructions explored by the verifier and sanitize instructions that are dead at run time with NOPs. We cannot reject such dead code, since llvm generates it for valid C code, since it doesn't do as much data flow analysis as the verifier does. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix mixed signed/unsigned derived min/max value bounds

2017-08-30T08:21:43Z

[ Upstream commit 4cabc5b186b5427b9ee5a7495172542af105f02b ] Edward reported that there's an issue in min/max value bounds tracking when signed and unsigned compares both provide hints on limits when having unknown variables. E.g. a program such as the following should have been rejected: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff8a94cda93400 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=1 R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R2=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit What happens is that in the first part ... 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = -1 10: (2d) if r1 > r2 goto pc+3 ... r1 carries an unsigned value, and is compared as unsigned against a register carrying an immediate. Verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is unsigned and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, r1's minimum bound must be 0 and maximum bound must be r2. Latter is larger than the bound and thus max value is reset back to being 'invalid' aka BPF_REGISTER_MAX_RANGE. Thus, r1 state is now 'R1=inv,min_value=0'. The subsequent test ... 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x1 goto pc+2 ... is a signed compare of r1 with immediate value 1. Here, verifier deduces in reg_set_min_max() that since the compare is signed this time and operation is greater than (>), that in the fall-through/false case, we can deduce that r1's maximum bound must be 1, meaning with prior test, we result in r1 having the following state: R1=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1. Given that the actual value this holds is -8, the bounds are wrongly deduced. When this is being added to r0 which holds the map_value(_adj) type, then subsequent store access in above case will go through check_mem_access() which invokes check_map_access_adj(), that will then probe whether the map memory is in bounds based on the min_value and max_value as well as access size since the actual unknown value is min_value <= x <= max_value; commit fce366a9dd0d ("bpf, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{, _adj} register types") provides some more explanation on the semantics. It's worth to note in this context that in the current code, min_value and max_value tracking are used for two things, i) dynamic map value access via check_map_access_adj() and since commit 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") ii) also enforced at check_helper_mem_access() when passing a memory address (pointer to packet, map value, stack) and length pair to a helper and the length in this case is an unknown value defining an access range through min_value/max_value in that case. The min_value/max_value tracking is /not/ used in the direct packet access case to track ranges. However, the issue also affects case ii), for example, the following crafted program based on the same principle must be rejected as well: 0: (b7) r2 = 0 1: (bf) r3 = r10 2: (07) r3 += -512 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 5: (b7) r6 = -1 6: (2d) if r4 > r6 goto pc+5 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 7: (65) if r4 s> 0x1 goto pc+4 R1=ctx R2=imm0,min_value=0,max_value=0,min_align=2147483648 R3=fp-512 R4=inv,min_value=0,max_value=1 R6=imm-1,max_value=18446744073709551615,min_align=1 R10=fp 8: (07) r4 += 1 9: (b7) r5 = 0 10: (6a) *(u16 *)(r10 -512) = 0 11: (85) call bpf_skb_load_bytes#26 12: (b7) r0 = 0 13: (95) exit Meaning, while we initialize the max_value stack slot that the verifier thinks we access in the [1,2] range, in reality we pass -7 as length which is interpreted as u32 in the helper. Thus, this issue is relevant also for the case of helper ranges. Resetting both bounds in check_reg_overflow() in case only one of them exceeds limits is also not enough as similar test can be created that uses values which are within range, thus also here learned min value in r1 is incorrect when mixed with later signed test to create a range: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff880ad081fa00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+7 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (65) if r1 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 12: (0f) r0 += r1 13: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=3,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3,max_value=4 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 14: (b7) r0 = 0 15: (95) exit This leaves us with two options for fixing this: i) to invalidate all prior learned information once we switch signed context, ii) to track min/max signed and unsigned boundaries separately as done in [0]. (Given latter introduces major changes throughout the whole verifier, it's rather net-next material, thus this patch follows option i), meaning we can derive bounds either from only signed tests or only unsigned tests.) There is still the case of adjust_reg_min_max_vals(), where we adjust bounds on ALU operations, meaning programs like the following where boundaries on the reg get mixed in context later on when bounds are merged on the dst reg must get rejected, too: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -8 3: (18) r1 = 0xffff89b2bf87ce00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+6 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = -8 8: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 9: (b7) r2 = 2 10: (3d) if r2 >= r1 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R10=fp 11: (b7) r7 = 1 12: (65) if r7 s> 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,max_value=0 R10=fp 13: (b7) r0 = 0 14: (95) exit from 12 to 15: R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=imm1,min_value=1 R10=fp 15: (0f) r7 += r1 16: (65) if r7 s> 0x4 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 17: (0f) r0 += r7 18: (72) *(u8 *)(r0 +0) = 0 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=4,max_value=4 R1=inv,min_value=3 R2=imm2,min_value=2,max_value=2,min_align=2 R7=inv,min_value=4,max_value=4 R10=fp 19: (b7) r0 = 0 20: (95) exit Meaning, in adjust_reg_min_max_vals() we must also reset range values on the dst when src/dst registers have mixed signed/ unsigned derived min/max value bounds with one unbounded value as otherwise they can be added together deducing false boundaries. Once both boundaries are established from either ALU ops or compare operations w/o mixing signed/unsigned insns, then they can safely be added to other regs also having both boundaries established. Adding regs with one unbounded side to a map value where the bounded side has been learned w/o mixing ops is possible, but the resulting map value won't recover from that, meaning such op is considered invalid on the time of actual access. Invalid bounds are set on the dst reg in case i) src reg, or ii) in case dst reg already had them. The only way to recover would be to perform i) ALU ops but only 'add' is allowed on map value types or ii) comparisons, but these are disallowed on pointers in case they span a range. This is fine as only BPF_JEQ and BPF_JNE may be performed on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers which potentially turn them into PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE type depending on the branch, so only here min/max value cannot be invalidated for them. In terms of state pruning, value_from_signed is considered as well in states_equal() when dealing with adjusted map values. With regards to breaking existing programs, there is a small risk, but use-cases are rather quite narrow where this could occur and mixing compares probably unlikely. Joint work with Josef and Edward. [0] https://lists.iovisor.org/pipermail/iovisor-dev/2017-June/000822.html Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Reported-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix state equivalence

2017-03-22T11:43:35Z

[ Upstream commit d2a4dd37f6b41fbcad76efbf63124eb3126c66fe ] Commmits 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers") and 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") by themselves are correct, but in combination they make state equivalence ignore 'id' field of the register state which can lead to accepting invalid program. Fixes: 57a09bf0a416 ("bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers") Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Thomas Graf Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Detect identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers

2017-03-22T11:43:35Z

[ Upstream commit 57a09bf0a416700676e77102c28f9cfcb48267e0 ] A BPF program is required to check the return register of a map_elem_lookup() call before accessing memory. The verifier keeps track of this by converting the type of the result register from PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE after a conditional jump ensures safety. This check is currently exclusively performed for the result register 0. In the event the compiler reorders instructions, BPF_MOV64_REG instructions may be moved before the conditional jump which causes them to keep their type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL to which the verifier objects when the register is accessed: 0: (b7) r1 = 10 1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1 2: (bf) r2 = r10 3: (07) r2 += -8 4: (18) r1 = 0x59c00000 6: (85) call 1 7: (bf) r4 = r0 8: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8) R4=map_value_or_null(ks=8,vs=8) R10=fp 9: (7a) *(u64 *)(r4 +0) = 0 R4 invalid mem access 'map_value_or_null' This commit extends the verifier to keep track of all identical PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers after a map_elem_lookup() by assigning them an ID and then marking them all when the conditional jump is observed. Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix range arithmetic for bpf map access

2016-11-16T18:21:45Z

I made some invalid assumptions with BPF_AND and BPF_MOD that could result in invalid accesses to bpf map entries. Fix this up by doing a few things 1) Kill BPF_MOD support. This doesn't actually get used by the compiler in real life and just adds extra complexity. 2) Fix the logic for BPF_AND, don't allow AND of negative numbers and set the minimum value to 0 for positive AND's. 3) Don't do operations on the ranges if they are set to the limits, as they are by definition undefined, and allowing arithmetic operations on those values could make them appear valid when they really aren't. This fixes the testcase provided by Jann as well as a few other theoretical problems. Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: allow access into map value arrays

2016-09-29T05:35:35Z

Suppose you have a map array value that is something like this struct foo { unsigned iter; int array[SOME_CONSTANT]; }; You can easily insert this into an array, but you cannot modify the contents of foo->array[] after the fact. This is because we have no way to verify we won't go off the end of the array at verification time. This patch provides a start for this work. We accomplish this by keeping track of a minimum and maximum value a register could be while we're checking the code. Then at the time we try to do an access into a MAP_VALUE we verify that the maximum offset into that region is a valid access into that memory region. So in practice, code such as this unsigned index = 0; if (foo->iter >= SOME_CONSTANT) foo->iter = index; else index = foo->iter++; foo->array[index] = bar; would be allowed, as we can verify that index will always be between 0 and SOME_CONSTANT-1. If you wish to use signed values you'll have to have an extra check to make sure the index isn't less than 0, or do something like index %= SOME_CONSTANT. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: enable non-core use of the verfier

2016-09-21T23:50:02Z

Advanced JIT compilers and translators may want to use eBPF verifier as a base for parsers or to perform custom checks and validations. Add ability for external users to invoke the verifier and provide callbacks to be invoked for every intruction checked. For now only add most basic callback for per-instruction pre-interpretation checks is added. More advanced users may also like to have per-instruction post callback and state comparison callback. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

bpf: expose internal verfier structures

2016-09-21T23:50:02Z

Move verifier's internal structures to a header file and prefix their names with bpf_ to avoid potential namespace conflicts. Those structures will soon be used by external analyzers. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller