user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf, branch v4.15.12

bpf: fix stack state printing in verifier log

2018-03-19T08:09:54Z

[ Upstream commit 12a3cc8424fe1237aaeb982dec4f0914ddd22f3e ] fix incorrect stack state prints in print_verifier_state() Fixes: 638f5b90d460 ("bpf: reduce verifier memory consumption") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: cpumap: use GFP_KERNEL instead of GFP_ATOMIC in __cpu_map_entry_alloc()

2018-03-15T09:56:44Z

commit 7fc17e909edfb9bf421ee04e981d3d474175c7c7 upstream. There're several implications after commit 0bf7800f1799 ("ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails") with the using of vmalloc() since can't allow GFP_ATOMIC but mandate GFP_KERNEL. This will lead a WARN since cpumap try to call with GFP_ATOMIC. Fortunately, entry allocation of cpumap can only be done through syscall path which means GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary, so fixing this by replacing GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_KERNEL. Reported-by: syzbot+1a240cdb1f4cc88819df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Fixes: 0bf7800f1799 ("ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails") Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org Signed-off-by: Jason Wang Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory

2018-03-11T15:25:14Z

[ upstream commit ca36960211eb228bcbc7aaebfa0d027368a94c60 ] The requirements around atomic_add() / atomic64_add() resp. their JIT implementations differ across architectures. E.g. while x86_64 seems just fine with BPF's xadd on unaligned memory, on arm64 it triggers via interpreter but also JIT the following crash: [ 830.864985] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffff8097d7ed6703 [...] [ 830.916161] Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] SMP [ 830.984755] CPU: 37 PID: 2788 Comm: test_verifier Not tainted 4.16.0-rc2+ #8 [ 830.991790] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 /BC11SPCD, BIOS 1.29 07/17/2017 [ 830.998998] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO) [ 831.003793] pc : __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18 [ 831.008055] lr : ___bpf_prog_run+0x1198/0x1588 [ 831.012485] sp : ffff00001ccabc20 [ 831.015786] x29: ffff00001ccabc20 x28: ffff8017d56a0f00 [ 831.021087] x27: 0000000000000001 x26: 0000000000000000 [ 831.026387] x25: 000000c168d9db98 x24: 0000000000000000 [ 831.031686] x23: ffff000008203878 x22: ffff000009488000 [ 831.036986] x21: ffff000008b14e28 x20: ffff00001ccabcb0 [ 831.042286] x19: ffff0000097b5080 x18: 0000000000000a03 [ 831.047585] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 [ 831.052885] x15: 0000ffffaeca8000 x14: 0000000000000000 [ 831.058184] x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 [ 831.063484] x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000000 [ 831.068783] x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000 [ 831.074083] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000580d428000000 [ 831.079383] x5 : 0000000000000018 x4 : 0000000000000000 [ 831.084682] x3 : ffff00001ccabcb0 x2 : 0000000000000001 [ 831.089982] x1 : ffff8097d7ed6703 x0 : 0000000000000001 [ 831.095282] Process test_verifier (pid: 2788, stack limit = 0x0000000018370044) [ 831.102577] Call trace: [ 831.105012] __ll_sc_atomic_add+0x4/0x18 [ 831.108923] __bpf_prog_run32+0x4c/0x70 [ 831.112748] bpf_test_run+0x78/0xf8 [ 831.116224] bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0xb4/0x120 [ 831.120567] SyS_bpf+0x77c/0x1110 [ 831.123873] el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34 [ 831.127437] Code: 97fffe97 17ffffec 00000000 f9800031 (885f7c31) Reason for this is because memory is required to be aligned. In case of BPF, we always enforce alignment in terms of stack access, but not when accessing map values or packet data when the underlying arch (e.g. arm64) has CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set. xadd on packet data that is local to us anyway is just wrong, so forbid this case entirely. The only place where xadd makes sense in fact are map values; xadd on stack is wrong as well, but it's been around for much longer. Specifically enforce strict alignment in case of xadd, so that we handle this case generically and avoid such crashes in the first place. Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: add schedule points in percpu arrays management

2018-03-11T15:25:14Z

[ upstream commit 32fff239de37ef226d5b66329dd133f64d63b22d ] syszbot managed to trigger RCU detected stalls in bpf_array_free_percpu() It takes time to allocate a huge percpu map, but even more time to free it. Since we run in process context, use cond_resched() to yield cpu if needed. Fixes: a10423b87a7e ("bpf: introduce BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY map") Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet Reported-by: syzbot Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

2018-03-11T15:25:13Z

[ upstream commit 6c5f61023c5b0edb0c8a64c902fe97c6453b1852 ] Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback function") fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback function. Unfortrunately, it introduced a lockdep warning. When lockdep checking is turned on, running tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map will have: [ 98.294321] ============================= [ 98.294807] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage [ 98.295359] 4.16.0-rc2+ #193 Not tainted [ 98.295907] ----------------------------- [ 98.296486] /home/yhs/work/bpf/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:572 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! [ 98.297657] [ 98.297657] other info that might help us debug this: [ 98.297657] [ 98.298663] [ 98.298663] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 [ 98.299536] 2 locks held by kworker/2:1/54: [ 98.300152] #0: ((wq_completion)"events"){+.+.}, at: [<00000000196bc1f0>] process_one_work+0x157/0x5c0 [ 98.301381] #1: ((work_completion)(&map->work)){+.+.}, at: [<00000000196bc1f0>] process_one_work+0x157/0x5c0 Since actual trie tree removal happens only after no other accesses to the tree are possible, replacing rcu_dereference_protected(*slot, lockdep_is_held(&trie->lock)) with rcu_dereference_protected(*slot, 1) fixed the issue. Fixes: 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback function") Reported-by: Eric Dumazet Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet Acked-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback function

2018-03-11T15:25:13Z

[ upstream commit 9a3efb6b661f71d5675369ace9257833f0e78ef3 ] There is a memory leak happening in lpm_trie map_free callback function trie_free. The trie structure itself does not get freed. Also, trie_free function did not do synchronize_rcu before freeing various data structures. This is incorrect as some rcu_read_lock region(s) for lookup, update, delete or get_next_key may not complete yet. The fix is to add synchronize_rcu in the beginning of trie_free. The useless spin_lock is removed from this function as well. Fixes: b95a5c4db09b ("bpf: add a longest prefix match trie map implementation") Reported-by: Mathieu Malaterre Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov Tested-by: Mathieu Malaterre Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: fix mlock precharge on arraymaps

2018-03-11T15:25:12Z

[ upstream commit 9c2d63b843a5c8a8d0559cc067b5398aa5ec3ffc ] syzkaller recently triggered OOM during percpu map allocation; while there is work in progress by Dennis Zhou to add __GFP_NORETRY semantics for percpu allocator under pressure, there seems also a missing bpf_map_precharge_memlock() check in array map allocation. Given today the actual bpf_map_charge_memlock() happens after the find_and_alloc_map() in syscall path, the bpf_map_precharge_memlock() is there to bail out early before we go and do the map setup work when we find that we hit the limits anyway. Therefore add this for array map as well. Fixes: 6c9059817432 ("bpf: pre-allocate hash map elements") Fixes: a10423b87a7e ("bpf: introduce BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY map") Reported-by: syzbot+adb03f3f0bb57ce3acda@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Dennis Zhou Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: mark dst unknown on inconsistent {s, u}bounds adjustments

2018-01-18T00:23:17Z

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

bpf: reject stores into ctx via st and xadd

2018-01-16T23:04:58Z

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

bpf: fix 32-bit divide by zero

2018-01-14T22:05:33Z

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