user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v4.14.186

bpf: Fix passing modified ctx to ld/abs/ind instruction

2020-01-12T11:12:02Z

commit 6d4f151acf9a4f6fab09b615f246c717ddedcf0c upstream. Anatoly has been fuzzing with kBdysch harness and reported a KASAN slab oob in one of the outcomes: [...] [ 77.359642] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache+0x71/0x130 [ 77.360463] Read of size 4 at addr ffff8880679bac68 by task bpf/406 [ 77.361119] [ 77.361289] CPU: 2 PID: 406 Comm: bpf Not tainted 5.5.0-rc2-xfstests-00157-g2187f215eba #1 [ 77.362134] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 [ 77.362984] Call Trace: [ 77.363249] dump_stack+0x97/0xe0 [ 77.363603] print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1d/0x220 [ 77.364251] ? bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache+0x71/0x130 [ 77.365030] ? bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache+0x71/0x130 [ 77.365860] __kasan_report.cold+0x37/0x7b [ 77.366365] ? bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache+0x71/0x130 [ 77.366940] kasan_report+0xe/0x20 [ 77.367295] bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache+0x71/0x130 [ 77.367821] ? bpf_skb_load_helper_8+0xf0/0xf0 [ 77.368278] ? mark_lock+0xa3/0x9b0 [ 77.368641] ? kvm_sched_clock_read+0x14/0x30 [ 77.369096] ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10 [ 77.369460] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x18/0x110 [ 77.369876] ? bpf_skb_load_helper_8+0xf0/0xf0 [ 77.370330] ___bpf_prog_run+0x16c0/0x28f0 [ 77.370755] __bpf_prog_run32+0x83/0xc0 [ 77.371153] ? __bpf_prog_run64+0xc0/0xc0 [ 77.371568] ? match_held_lock+0x1b/0x230 [ 77.371984] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0xa1/0xb0 [ 77.372416] ? rcu_is_watching+0x34/0x50 [ 77.372826] sk_filter_trim_cap+0x17c/0x4d0 [ 77.373259] ? sock_kzfree_s+0x40/0x40 [ 77.373648] ? __get_filter+0x150/0x150 [ 77.374059] ? skb_copy_datagram_from_iter+0x80/0x280 [ 77.374581] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0x140 [ 77.375025] unix_dgram_sendmsg+0x33a/0xa70 [ 77.375459] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x1d0/0x1d0 [ 77.375893] ? unix_peer_get+0xa0/0xa0 [ 77.376287] ? __fget_light+0xa4/0xf0 [ 77.376670] __sys_sendto+0x265/0x280 [ 77.377056] ? __ia32_sys_getpeername+0x50/0x50 [ 77.377523] ? lock_downgrade+0x350/0x350 [ 77.377940] ? __sys_setsockopt+0x2a6/0x2c0 [ 77.378374] ? sock_read_iter+0x240/0x240 [ 77.378789] ? __sys_socketpair+0x22a/0x300 [ 77.379221] ? __ia32_sys_socket+0x50/0x50 [ 77.379649] ? mark_held_locks+0x1d/0x90 [ 77.380059] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c [ 77.380536] __x64_sys_sendto+0x74/0x90 [ 77.380938] do_syscall_64+0x68/0x2a0 [ 77.381324] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 77.381878] RIP: 0033:0x44c070 [...] After further debugging, turns out while in case of other helper functions we disallow passing modified ctx, the special case of ld/abs/ind instruction which has similar semantics (except r6 being the ctx argument) is missing such check. Modified ctx is impossible here as bpf_skb_load_helper_8_no_cache() and others are expecting skb fields in original position, hence, add check_ctx_reg() to reject any modified ctx. Issue was first introduced back in f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking"). Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Reported-by: Anatoly Trosinenko Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200106215157.3553-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: reject passing modified ctx to helper functions

2020-01-12T11:12:02Z

commit 58990d1ff3f7896ee341030e9a7c2e4002570683 upstream. As commit 28e33f9d78ee ("bpf: disallow arithmetic operations on context pointer") already describes, f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") removed the specific white-listed cases we had previously where we would allow for pointer arithmetic in order to further generalize it, and allow e.g. context access via modified registers. While the dereferencing of modified context pointers had been forbidden through 28e33f9d78ee, syzkaller did recently manage to trigger several KASAN splats for slab out of bounds access and use after frees by simply passing a modified context pointer to a helper function which would then do the bad access since verifier allowed it in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Rejecting arithmetic on ctx pointer in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() generally could break existing programs as there's a valid use case in tracing in combination with passing the ctx to helpers as bpf_probe_read(), where the register then becomes unknown at verification time due to adding a non-constant offset to it. An access sequence may look like the following: offset = args->filename; /* field __data_loc filename */ bpf_probe_read(&dst, len, (char *)args + offset); // args is ctx There are two options: i) we could special case the ctx and as soon as we add a constant or bounded offset to it (hence ctx type wouldn't change) we could turn the ctx into an unknown scalar, or ii) we generalize the sanity test for ctx member access into a small helper and assert it on the ctx register that was passed as a function argument. Fwiw, latter is more obvious and less complex at the same time, and one case that may potentially be legitimate in future for ctx member access at least would be for ctx to carry a const offset. Therefore, fix follows approach from ii) and adds test cases to BPF kselftests. Fixes: f1174f77b50c ("bpf/verifier: rework value tracking") Reported-by: syzbot+3d0b2441dbb71751615e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+c8504affd4fdd0c1b626@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+e5190cb881d8660fb1a3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Reported-by: syzbot+efae31b384d5badbd620@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix sanitation rewrite in case of non-pointers

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit 3612af783cf52c74a031a2f11b82247b2599d3cd upstream. Marek reported that he saw an issue with the below snippet in that timing measurements where off when loaded as unpriv while results were reasonable when loaded as privileged: [...] uint64_t a = bpf_ktime_get_ns(); uint64_t b = bpf_ktime_get_ns(); uint64_t delta = b - a; if ((int64_t)delta > 0) { [...] Turns out there is a bug where a corner case is missing in the fix d3bd7413e0ca ("bpf: fix sanitation of alu op with pointer / scalar type from different paths"), namely fixup_bpf_calls() only checks whether aux has a non-zero alu_state, but it also needs to test for the case of BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER since in both occasions we need to skip the masking rewrite (as there is nothing to mask). Fixes: d3bd7413e0ca ("bpf: fix sanitation of alu op with pointer / scalar type from different paths") Reported-by: Marek Majkowski Reported-by: Arthur Fabre Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAJPywTJqP34cK20iLM5YmUMz9KXQOdu1-+BZrGMAGgLuBWz7fg@mail.gmail.com/T/ Acked-by: Song Liu Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: do not restore dst_reg when cur_state is freed

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit 0803278b0b4d8eeb2b461fb698785df65a725d9e upstream. Syzkaller hit 'KASAN: use-after-free Write in sanitize_ptr_alu' bug. Call trace: dump_stack+0xbf/0x12e print_address_description+0x6a/0x280 kasan_report+0x237/0x360 sanitize_ptr_alu+0x85a/0x8d0 adjust_ptr_min_max_vals+0x8f2/0x1ca0 adjust_reg_min_max_vals+0x8ed/0x22e0 do_check+0x1ca6/0x5d00 bpf_check+0x9ca/0x2570 bpf_prog_load+0xc91/0x1030 __se_sys_bpf+0x61e/0x1f00 do_syscall_64+0xc8/0x550 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe Fault injection trace: kfree+0xea/0x290 free_func_state+0x4a/0x60 free_verifier_state+0x61/0xe0 push_stack+0x216/0x2f0 <- inject failslab sanitize_ptr_alu+0x2b1/0x8d0 adjust_ptr_min_max_vals+0x8f2/0x1ca0 adjust_reg_min_max_vals+0x8ed/0x22e0 do_check+0x1ca6/0x5d00 bpf_check+0x9ca/0x2570 bpf_prog_load+0xc91/0x1030 __se_sys_bpf+0x61e/0x1f00 do_syscall_64+0xc8/0x550 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe When kzalloc() fails in push_stack(), free_verifier_state() will free current verifier state. As push_stack() returns, dst_reg was restored if ptr_is_dst_reg is false. However, as member of the cur_state, dst_reg is also freed, and error occurs when dereferencing dst_reg. Simply fix it by testing ret of push_stack() before restoring dst_reg. Fixes: 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") Signed-off-by: Xu Yu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix sanitation of alu op with pointer / scalar type from different paths

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit d3bd7413e0ca40b60cf60d4003246d067cafdeda upstream. While 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") took care of rejecting alu op on pointer when e.g. pointer came from two different map values with different map properties such as value size, Jann reported that a case was not covered yet when a given alu op is used in both "ptr_reg += reg" and "numeric_reg += reg" from different branches where we would incorrectly try to sanitize based on the pointer's limit. Catch this corner case and reject the program instead. Fixes: 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Vallish Vaidyeshwara Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit 979d63d50c0c0f7bc537bf821e056cc9fe5abd38 upstream. Jann reported that the original commit back in b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") was not sufficient to stop CPU from speculating out of bounds memory access: While b2157399cc98 only focussed on masking array map access for unprivileged users for tail calls and data access such that the user provided index gets sanitized from BPF program and syscall side, there is still a more generic form affected from BPF programs that applies to most maps that hold user data in relation to dynamic map access when dealing with unknown scalars or "slow" known scalars as access offset, for example: - Load a map value pointer into R6 - Load an index into R7 - Do a slow computation (e.g. with a memory dependency) that loads a limit into R8 (e.g. load the limit from a map for high latency, then mask it to make the verifier happy) - Exit if R7 >= R8 (mispredicted branch) - Load R0 = R6[R7] - Load R0 = R6[R0] For unknown scalars there are two options in the BPF verifier where we could derive knowledge from in order to guarantee safe access to the memory: i) While /<=/>= variants won't allow to derive any lower or upper bounds from the unknown scalar where it would be safe to add it to the map value pointer, it is possible through ==/!= test however. ii) another option is to transform the unknown scalar into a known scalar, for example, through ALU ops combination such as R &= followed by R |= or any similar combination where the original information from the unknown scalar would be destroyed entirely leaving R with a constant. The initial slow load still precedes the latter ALU ops on that register, so the CPU executes speculatively from that point. Once we have the known scalar, any compare operation would work then. A third option only involving registers with known scalars could be crafted as described in [0] where a CPU port (e.g. Slow Int unit) would be filled with many dependent computations such that the subsequent condition depending on its outcome has to wait for evaluation on its execution port and thereby executing speculatively if the speculated code can be scheduled on a different execution port, or any other form of mistraining as described in [1], for example. Given this is not limited to only unknown scalars, not only map but also stack access is affected since both is accessible for unprivileged users and could potentially be used for out of bounds access under speculation. In order to prevent any of these cases, the verifier is now sanitizing pointer arithmetic on the offset such that any out of bounds speculation would be masked in a way where the pointer arithmetic result in the destination register will stay unchanged, meaning offset masked into zero similar as in array_index_nospec() case. With regards to implementation, there are three options that were considered: i) new insn for sanitation, ii) push/pop insn and sanitation as inlined BPF, iii) reuse of ax register and sanitation as inlined BPF. Option i) has the downside that we end up using from reserved bits in the opcode space, but also that we would require each JIT to emit masking as native arch opcodes meaning mitigation would have slow adoption till everyone implements it eventually which is counter-productive. Option ii) and iii) have both in common that a temporary register is needed in order to implement the sanitation as inlined BPF since we are not allowed to modify the source register. While a push / pop insn in ii) would be useful to have in any case, it requires once again that every JIT needs to implement it first. While possible, amount of changes needed would also be unsuitable for a -stable patch. Therefore, the path which has fewer changes, less BPF instructions for the mitigation and does not require anything to be changed in the JITs is option iii) which this work is pursuing. The ax register is already mapped to a register in all JITs (modulo arm32 where it's mapped to stack as various other BPF registers there) and used in constant blinding for JITs-only so far. It can be reused for verifier rewrites under certain constraints. The interpreter's tmp "register" has therefore been remapped into extending the register set with hidden ax register and reusing that for a number of instructions that needed the prior temporary variable internally (e.g. div, mod). This allows for zero increase in stack space usage in the interpreter, and enables (restricted) generic use in rewrites otherwise as long as such a patchlet does not make use of these instructions. The sanitation mask is dynamic and relative to the offset the map value or stack pointer currently holds. There are various cases that need to be taken under consideration for the masking, e.g. such operation could look as follows: ptr += val or val += ptr or ptr -= val. Thus, the value to be sanitized could reside either in source or in destination register, and the limit is different depending on whether the ALU op is addition or subtraction and depending on the current known and bounded offset. The limit is derived as follows: limit := max_value_size - (smin_value + off). For subtraction: limit := umax_value + off. This holds because we do not allow any pointer arithmetic that would temporarily go out of bounds or would have an unknown value with mixed signed bounds where it is unclear at verification time whether the actual runtime value would be either negative or positive. For example, we have a derived map pointer value with constant offset and bounded one, so limit based on smin_value works because the verifier requires that statically analyzed arithmetic on the pointer must be in bounds, and thus it checks if resulting smin_value + off and umax_value + off is still within map value bounds at time of arithmetic in addition to time of access. Similarly, for the case of stack access we derive the limit as follows: MAX_BPF_STACK + off for subtraction and -off for the case of addition where off := ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value. Subtraction is a special case for the masking which can be in form of ptr += -val, ptr -= -val, or ptr -= val. In the first two cases where we know that the value is negative, we need to temporarily negate the value in order to do the sanitation on a positive value where we later swap the ALU op, and restore original source register if the value was in source. The sanitation of pointer arithmetic alone is still not fully sufficient as is, since a scenario like the following could happen ... PTR += 0x1000 (e.g. K-based imm) PTR -= BIG_NUMBER_WITH_SLOW_COMPARISON PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= BIG_NUMBER_WITH_SLOW_COMPARISON [...] ... which under speculation could end up as ... PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= 0 [ truncated by mitigation ] PTR += 0x1000 PTR -= 0 [ truncated by mitigation ] [...] ... and therefore still access out of bounds. To prevent such case, the verifier is also analyzing safety for potential out of bounds access under speculative execution. Meaning, it is also simulating pointer access under truncation. We therefore "branch off" and push the current verification state after the ALU operation with known 0 to the verification stack for later analysis. Given the current path analysis succeeded it is likely that the one under speculation can be pruned. In any case, it is also subject to existing complexity limits and therefore anything beyond this point will be rejected. In terms of pruning, it needs to be ensured that the verification state from speculative execution simulation must never prune a non-speculative execution path, therefore, we mark verifier state accordingly at the time of push_stack(). If verifier detects out of bounds access under speculative execution from one of the possible paths that includes a truncation, it will reject such program. Given we mask every reg-based pointer arithmetic for unprivileged programs, we've been looking into how it could affect real-world programs in terms of size increase. As the majority of programs are targeted for privileged-only use case, we've unconditionally enabled masking (with its alu restrictions on top of it) for privileged programs for the sake of testing in order to check i) whether they get rejected in its current form, and ii) by how much the number of instructions and size will increase. We've tested this by using Katran, Cilium and test_l4lb from the kernel selftests. For Katran we've evaluated balancer_kern.o, Cilium bpf_lxc.o and an older test object bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o and l4lb we've used test_l4lb.o as well as test_l4lb_noinline.o. We found that none of the programs got rejected by the verifier with this change, and that impact is rather minimal to none. balancer_kern.o had 13,904 bytes (1,738 insns) xlated and 7,797 bytes JITed before and after the change. Most complex program in bpf_lxc.o had 30,544 bytes (3,817 insns) xlated and 18,538 bytes JITed before and after and none of the other tail call programs in bpf_lxc.o had any changes either. For the older bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o object we found a small increase from 20,616 bytes (2,576 insns) and 12,536 bytes JITed before to 20,664 bytes (2,582 insns) and 12,558 bytes JITed after the change. Other programs from that object file had similar small increase. Both test_l4lb.o had no change and remained at 6,544 bytes (817 insns) xlated and 3,401 bytes JITed and for test_l4lb_noinline.o constant at 5,080 bytes (634 insns) xlated and 3,313 bytes JITed. This can be explained in that LLVM typically optimizes stack based pointer arithmetic by using K-based operations and that use of dynamic map access is not overly frequent. However, in future we may decide to optimize the algorithm further under known guarantees from branch and value speculation. Latter seems also unclear in terms of prediction heuristics that today's CPUs apply as well as whether there could be collisions in e.g. the predictor's Value History/Pattern Table for triggering out of bounds access, thus masking is performed unconditionally at this point but could be subject to relaxation later on. We were generally also brainstorming various other approaches for mitigation, but the blocker was always lack of available registers at runtime and/or overhead for runtime tracking of limits belonging to a specific pointer. Thus, we found this to be minimally intrusive under given constraints. With that in place, a simple example with sanitized access on unprivileged load at post-verification time looks as follows: # bpftool prog dump xlated id 282 [...] 28: (79) r1 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) 29: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r7 +8) 30: (57) r1 &= 15 31: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r0 +4608) 32: (57) r3 &= 1 33: (47) r3 |= 1 34: (2d) if r2 > r3 goto pc+19 35: (b4) (u32) r11 = (u32) 20479 | 36: (1f) r11 -= r2 | Dynamic sanitation for pointer 37: (4f) r11 |= r2 | arithmetic with registers 38: (87) r11 = -r11 | containing bounded or known 39: (c7) r11 s>>= 63 | scalars in order to prevent 40: (5f) r11 &= r2 | out of bounds speculation. 41: (0f) r4 += r11 | 42: (71) r4 = *(u8 *)(r4 +0) 43: (6f) r4 <<= r1 [...] For the case where the scalar sits in the destination register as opposed to the source register, the following code is emitted for the above example: [...] 16: (b4) (u32) r11 = (u32) 20479 17: (1f) r11 -= r2 18: (4f) r11 |= r2 19: (87) r11 = -r11 20: (c7) r11 s>>= 63 21: (5f) r2 &= r11 22: (0f) r2 += r0 23: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) [...] JIT blinding example with non-conflicting use of r10: [...] d5: je 0x0000000000000106 _ d7: mov 0x0(%rax),%edi | da: mov $0xf153246,%r10d | Index load from map value and e0: xor $0xf153259,%r10 | (const blinded) mask with 0x1f. e7: and %r10,%rdi |_ ea: mov $0x2f,%r10d | f0: sub %rdi,%r10 | Sanitized addition. Both use r10 f3: or %rdi,%r10 | but do not interfere with each f6: neg %r10 | other. (Neither do these instructions f9: sar $0x3f,%r10 | interfere with the use of ax as temp fd: and %r10,%rdi | in interpreter.) 100: add %rax,%rdi |_ 103: mov 0x0(%rdi),%eax [...] Tested that it fixes Jann's reproducer, and also checked that test_verifier and test_progs suite with interpreter, JIT and JIT with hardening enabled on x86-64 and arm64 runs successfully. [0] Speculose: Analyzing the Security Implications of Speculative Execution in CPUs, Giorgi Maisuradze and Christian Rossow, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04084.pdf [1] A Systematic Evaluation of Transient Execution Attacks and Defenses, Claudio Canella, Jo Van Bulck, Michael Schwarz, Moritz Lipp, Benjamin von Berg, Philipp Ortner, Frank Piessens, Dmitry Evtyushkin, Daniel Gruss, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.05441.pdf Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Vallish Vaidyeshwara [some checkpatch cleanups and backported to 4.14 by sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix check_map_access smin_value test when pointer contains offset

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit b7137c4eab85c1cf3d46acdde90ce1163b28c873 upstream. In check_map_access() we probe actual bounds through __check_map_access() with offset of reg->smin_value + off for lower bound and offset of reg->umax_value + off for the upper bound. However, even though the reg->smin_value could have a negative value, the final result of the sum with off could be positive when pointer arithmetic with known and unknown scalars is combined. In this case we reject the program with an error such as "R min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check." even though the access itself would be fine. Therefore extend the check to probe whether the actual resulting reg->smin_value + off is less than zero. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov [backported to 4.14 sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit 9d7eceede769f90b66cfa06ad5b357140d5141ed upstream. For unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds, meaning their smin_value is negative and their smax_value is positive, we need to reject arithmetic with pointer to map value. For unprivileged the goal is to mask every map pointer arithmetic and this cannot reliably be done when it is unknown at verification time whether the scalar value is negative or positive. Given this is a corner case, the likelihood of breaking should be very small. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov [backported to 4.14 sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: restrict stack pointer arithmetic for unprivileged

2019-04-20T07:15:09Z

commit e4298d25830a866cc0f427d4bccb858e76715859 upstream. Restrict stack pointer arithmetic for unprivileged users in that arithmetic itself must not go out of bounds as opposed to the actual access later on. Therefore after each adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() with a stack pointer as a destination we simulate a check_stack_access() of 1 byte on the destination and once that fails the program is rejected for unprivileged program loads. This is analog to map value pointer arithmetic and needed for masking later on. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov [backported to 4.14 sblbir] Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: restrict map value pointer arithmetic for unprivileged

2019-04-20T07:15:08Z

commit 0d6303db7970e6f56ae700fa07e11eb510cda125 upstream. Restrict map value pointer arithmetic for unprivileged users in that arithmetic itself must not go out of bounds as opposed to the actual access later on. Therefore after each adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() with a map value pointer as a destination it will simulate a check_map_access() of 1 byte on the destination and once that fails the program is rejected for unprivileged program loads. We use this later on for masking any pointer arithmetic with the remainder of the map value space. The likelihood of breaking any existing real-world unprivileged eBPF program is very small for this corner case. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman