user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf, branch v4.19.228

bpf: Fix the off-by-two error in range markings

2021-12-14T09:18:05Z

commit 2fa7d94afc1afbb4d702760c058dc2d7ed30f226 upstream. The first commit cited below attempts to fix the off-by-one error that appeared in some comparisons with an open range. Due to this error, arithmetically equivalent pieces of code could get different verdicts from the verifier, for example (pseudocode): // 1. Passes the verifier: if (data + 8 > data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7] // 2. Rejected by the verifier (should still pass): if (data + 7 >= data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7] The attempted fix, however, shifts the range by one in a wrong direction, so the bug not only remains, but also such piece of code starts failing in the verifier: // 3. Rejected by the verifier, but the check is stricter than in #1. if (data + 8 >= data_end) return early read *(u64 *)data, i.e. [data; data+7] The change performed by that fix converted an off-by-one bug into off-by-two. The second commit cited below added the BPF selftests written to ensure than code chunks like #3 are rejected, however, they should be accepted. This commit fixes the off-by-two error by adjusting new_range in the right direction and fixes the tests by changing the range into the one that should actually fail. Fixes: fb2a311a31d3 ("bpf: fix off by one for range markings with L{T, E} patterns") Fixes: b37242c773b2 ("bpf: add test cases to bpf selftests to cover all access tests") Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130181607.593149-1-maximmi@nvidia.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Prevent increasing bpf_jit_limit above max

2021-11-26T10:35:59Z

[ Upstream commit fadb7ff1a6c2c565af56b4aacdd086b067eed440 ] Restrict bpf_jit_limit to the maximum supported by the arch's JIT. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211014142554.53120-4-lmb@cloudflare.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix integer overflow in prealloc_elems_and_freelist()

2021-10-13T08:10:51Z

[ Upstream commit 30e29a9a2bc6a4888335a6ede968b75cd329657a ] In prealloc_elems_and_freelist(), the multiplication to calculate the size passed to bpf_map_area_alloc() could lead to an integer overflow. As a result, out-of-bounds write could occur in pcpu_freelist_populate() as reported by KASAN: [...] [ 16.968613] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in pcpu_freelist_populate+0xd9/0x100 [ 16.969408] Write of size 8 at addr ffff888104fc6ea0 by task crash/78 [ 16.970038] [ 16.970195] CPU: 0 PID: 78 Comm: crash Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #1 [ 16.970878] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014 [ 16.972026] Call Trace: [ 16.972306] dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44 [ 16.972687] print_address_description.constprop.0+0x21/0x140 [ 16.973297] ? pcpu_freelist_populate+0xd9/0x100 [ 16.973777] ? pcpu_freelist_populate+0xd9/0x100 [ 16.974257] kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x11b [ 16.974681] ? pcpu_freelist_populate+0xd9/0x100 [ 16.975190] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xd9/0x100 [ 16.975669] stack_map_alloc+0x209/0x2a0 [ 16.976106] __sys_bpf+0xd83/0x2ce0 [...] The possibility of this overflow was originally discussed in [0], but was overlooked. Fix the integer overflow by changing elem_size to u64 from u32. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/728b238e-a481-eb50-98e9-b0f430ab01e7@gmail.com/ Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Signed-off-by: Tatsuhiko Yasumatsu Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210930135545.173698-1-th.yasumatsu@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix pointer arithmetic mask tightening under state pruning

2021-09-22T09:47:59Z

commit e042aa532c84d18ff13291d00620502ce7a38dda upstream. In 7fedb63a8307 ("bpf: Tighten speculative pointer arithmetic mask") we narrowed the offset mask for unprivileged pointer arithmetic in order to mitigate a corner case where in the speculative domain it is possible to advance, for example, the map value pointer by up to value_size-1 out-of- bounds in order to leak kernel memory via side-channel to user space. The verifier's state pruning for scalars leaves one corner case open where in the first verification path R_x holds an unknown scalar with an aux->alu_limit of e.g. 7, and in a second verification path that same register R_x, here denoted as R_x', holds an unknown scalar which has tighter bounds and would thus satisfy range_within(R_x, R_x') as well as tnum_in(R_x, R_x') for state pruning, yielding an aux->alu_limit of 3: Given the second path fits the register constraints for pruning, the final generated mask from aux->alu_limit will remain at 7. While technically not wrong for the non-speculative domain, it would however be possible to craft similar cases where the mask would be too wide as in 7fedb63a8307. One way to fix it is to detect the presence of unknown scalar map pointer arithmetic and force a deeper search on unknown scalars to ensure that we do not run into a masking mismatch. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov [OP: adjusted context for 4.19] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: verifier: Allocate idmap scratch in verifier env

2021-09-22T09:47:59Z

commit c9e73e3d2b1eb1ea7ff068e05007eec3bd8ef1c9 upstream. func_states_equal makes a very short lived allocation for idmap, probably because it's too large to fit on the stack. However the function is called quite often, leading to a lot of alloc / free churn. Replace the temporary allocation with dedicated scratch space in struct bpf_verifier_env. Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Edward Cree Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210429134656.122225-4-lmb@cloudflare.com [OP: adjusted context for 4.19] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation

2021-09-22T09:47:59Z

commit 2039f26f3aca5b0e419b98f65dd36481337b86ee upstream. Spectre v4 gadgets make use of memory disambiguation, which is a set of techniques that execute memory access instructions, that is, loads and stores, out of program order; Intel's optimization manual, section 2.4.4.5: A load instruction micro-op may depend on a preceding store. Many microarchitectures block loads until all preceding store addresses are known. The memory disambiguator predicts which loads will not depend on any previous stores. When the disambiguator predicts that a load does not have such a dependency, the load takes its data from the L1 data cache. Eventually, the prediction is verified. If an actual conflict is detected, the load and all succeeding instructions are re-executed. af86ca4e3088 ("bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack") tried to mitigate this attack by sanitizing the memory locations through preemptive "fast" (low latency) stores of zero prior to the actual "slow" (high latency) store of a pointer value such that upon dependency misprediction the CPU then speculatively executes the load of the pointer value and retrieves the zero value instead of the attacker controlled scalar value previously stored at that location, meaning, subsequent access in the speculative domain is then redirected to the "zero page". The sanitized preemptive store of zero prior to the actual "slow" store is done through a simple ST instruction based on r10 (frame pointer) with relative offset to the stack location that the verifier has been tracking on the original used register for STX, which does not have to be r10. Thus, there are no memory dependencies for this store, since it's only using r10 and immediate constant of zero; hence af86ca4e3088 /assumed/ a low latency operation. However, a recent attack demonstrated that this mitigation is not sufficient since the preemptive store of zero could also be turned into a "slow" store and is thus bypassed as well: [...] // r2 = oob address (e.g. scalar) // r7 = pointer to map value 31: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r2 // r9 will remain "fast" register, r10 will become "slow" register below 32: (bf) r9 = r10 // JIT maps BPF reg to x86 reg: // r9 -> r15 (callee saved) // r10 -> rbp // train store forward prediction to break dependency link between both r9 // and r10 by evicting them from the predictor's LRU table. 33: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +24576) 34: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29696) = r0 35: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +24580) 36: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29700) = r0 37: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +24584) 38: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29704) = r0 39: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +24588) 40: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29708) = r0 [...] 543: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +25596) 544: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +30716) = r0 // prepare call to bpf_ringbuf_output() helper. the latter will cause rbp // to spill to stack memory while r13/r14/r15 (all callee saved regs) remain // in hardware registers. rbp becomes slow due to push/pop latency. below is // disasm of bpf_ringbuf_output() helper for better visual context: // // ffffffff8117ee20: 41 54 push r12 // ffffffff8117ee22: 55 push rbp // ffffffff8117ee23: 53 push rbx // ffffffff8117ee24: 48 f7 c1 fc ff ff ff test rcx,0xfffffffffffffffc // ffffffff8117ee2b: 0f 85 af 00 00 00 jne ffffffff8117eee0 <-- jump taken // [...] // ffffffff8117eee0: 49 c7 c4 ea ff ff ff mov r12,0xffffffffffffffea // ffffffff8117eee7: 5b pop rbx // ffffffff8117eee8: 5d pop rbp // ffffffff8117eee9: 4c 89 e0 mov rax,r12 // ffffffff8117eeec: 41 5c pop r12 // ffffffff8117eeee: c3 ret 545: (18) r1 = map[id:4] 547: (bf) r2 = r7 548: (b7) r3 = 0 549: (b7) r4 = 4 550: (85) call bpf_ringbuf_output#194288 // instruction 551 inserted by verifier \ 551: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = 0 | /both/ are now slow stores here // storing map value pointer r7 at fp-16 | since value of r10 is "slow". 552: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r7 / // following "fast" read to the same memory location, but due to dependency // misprediction it will speculatively execute before insn 551/552 completes. 553: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r9 -16) // in speculative domain contains attacker controlled r2. in non-speculative // domain this contains r7, and thus accesses r7 +0 below. 554: (71) r3 = *(u8 *)(r2 +0) // leak r3 As can be seen, the current speculative store bypass mitigation which the verifier inserts at line 551 is insufficient since /both/, the write of the zero sanitation as well as the map value pointer are a high latency instruction due to prior memory access via push/pop of r10 (rbp) in contrast to the low latency read in line 553 as r9 (r15) which stays in hardware registers. Thus, architecturally, fp-16 is r7, however, microarchitecturally, fp-16 can still be r2. Initial thoughts to address this issue was to track spilled pointer loads from stack and enforce their load via LDX through r10 as well so that /both/ the preemptive store of zero /as well as/ the load use the /same/ register such that a dependency is created between the store and load. However, this option is not sufficient either since it can be bypassed as well under speculation. An updated attack with pointer spill/fills now _all_ based on r10 would look as follows: [...] // r2 = oob address (e.g. scalar) // r7 = pointer to map value [...] // longer store forward prediction training sequence than before. 2062: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +25588) 2063: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +30708) = r0 2064: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +25592) 2065: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +30712) = r0 2066: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r7 +25596) 2067: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +30716) = r0 // store the speculative load address (scalar) this time after the store // forward prediction training. 2068: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r2 // preoccupy the CPU store port by running sequence of dummy stores. 2069: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29696) = r0 2070: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29700) = r0 2071: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29704) = r0 2072: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29708) = r0 2073: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29712) = r0 2074: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29716) = r0 2075: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29720) = r0 2076: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29724) = r0 2077: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29728) = r0 2078: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29732) = r0 2079: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29736) = r0 2080: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29740) = r0 2081: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29744) = r0 2082: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29748) = r0 2083: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29752) = r0 2084: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29756) = r0 2085: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29760) = r0 2086: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29764) = r0 2087: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29768) = r0 2088: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29772) = r0 2089: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29776) = r0 2090: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29780) = r0 2091: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29784) = r0 2092: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29788) = r0 2093: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29792) = r0 2094: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29796) = r0 2095: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29800) = r0 2096: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29804) = r0 2097: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29808) = r0 2098: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29812) = r0 // overwrite scalar with dummy pointer; same as before, also including the // sanitation store with 0 from the current mitigation by the verifier. 2099: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = 0 | /both/ are now slow stores here 2100: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r7 | since store unit is still busy. // load from stack intended to bypass stores. 2101: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 2102: (71) r3 = *(u8 *)(r2 +0) // leak r3 [...] Looking at the CPU microarchitecture, the scheduler might issue loads (such as seen in line 2101) before stores (line 2099,2100) because the load execution units become available while the store execution unit is still busy with the sequence of dummy stores (line 2069-2098). And so the load may use the prior stored scalar from r2 at address r10 -16 for speculation. The updated attack may work less reliable on CPU microarchitectures where loads and stores share execution resources. This concludes that the sanitizing with zero stores from af86ca4e3088 ("bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack") is insufficient. Moreover, the detection of stack reuse from af86ca4e3088 where previously data (STACK_MISC) has been written to a given stack slot where a pointer value is now to be stored does not have sufficient coverage as precondition for the mitigation either; for several reasons outlined as follows: 1) Stack content from prior program runs could still be preserved and is therefore not "random", best example is to split a speculative store bypass attack between tail calls, program A would prepare and store the oob address at a given stack slot and then tail call into program B which does the "slow" store of a pointer to the stack with subsequent "fast" read. From program B PoV such stack slot type is STACK_INVALID, and therefore also must be subject to mitigation. 2) The STACK_SPILL must not be coupled to register_is_const(&stack->spilled_ptr) condition, for example, the previous content of that memory location could also be a pointer to map or map value. Without the fix, a speculative store bypass is not mitigated in such precondition and can then lead to a type confusion in the speculative domain leaking kernel memory near these pointer types. While brainstorming on various alternative mitigation possibilities, we also stumbled upon a retrospective from Chrome developers [0]: [...] For variant 4, we implemented a mitigation to zero the unused memory of the heap prior to allocation, which cost about 1% when done concurrently and 4% for scavenging. Variant 4 defeats everything we could think of. We explored more mitigations for variant 4 but the threat proved to be more pervasive and dangerous than we anticipated. For example, stack slots used by the register allocator in the optimizing compiler could be subject to type confusion, leading to pointer crafting. Mitigating type confusion for stack slots alone would have required a complete redesign of the backend of the optimizing compiler, perhaps man years of work, without a guarantee of completeness. [...] >From BPF side, the problem space is reduced, however, options are rather limited. One idea that has been explored was to xor-obfuscate pointer spills to the BPF stack: [...] // preoccupy the CPU store port by running sequence of dummy stores. [...] 2106: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29796) = r0 2107: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29800) = r0 2108: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29804) = r0 2109: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29808) = r0 2110: (63) *(u32 *)(r7 +29812) = r0 // overwrite scalar with dummy pointer; xored with random 'secret' value // of 943576462 before store ... 2111: (b4) w11 = 943576462 2112: (af) r11 ^= r7 2113: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r11 2114: (79) r11 = *(u64 *)(r10 -16) 2115: (b4) w2 = 943576462 2116: (af) r2 ^= r11 // ... and restored with the same 'secret' value with the help of AX reg. 2117: (71) r3 = *(u8 *)(r2 +0) [...] While the above would not prevent speculation, it would make data leakage infeasible by directing it to random locations. In order to be effective and prevent type confusion under speculation, such random secret would have to be regenerated for each store. The additional complexity involved for a tracking mechanism that prevents jumps such that restoring spilled pointers would not get corrupted is not worth the gain for unprivileged. Hence, the fix in here eventually opted for emitting a non-public BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC instruction which the x86 JIT translates into a lfence opcode. Inserting the latter in between the store and load instruction is one of the mitigations options [1]. The x86 instruction manual notes: [...] An LFENCE that follows an instruction that stores to memory might complete before the data being stored have become globally visible. [...] The latter meaning that the preceding store instruction finished execution and the store is at minimum guaranteed to be in the CPU's store queue, but it's not guaranteed to be in that CPU's L1 cache at that point (globally visible). The latter would only be guaranteed via sfence. So the load which is guaranteed to execute after the lfence for that local CPU would have to rely on store-to-load forwarding. [2], in section 2.3 on store buffers says: [...] For every store operation that is added to the ROB, an entry is allocated in the store buffer. This entry requires both the virtual and physical address of the target. Only if there is no free entry in the store buffer, the frontend stalls until there is an empty slot available in the store buffer again. Otherwise, the CPU can immediately continue adding subsequent instructions to the ROB and execute them out of order. On Intel CPUs, the store buffer has up to 56 entries. [...] One small upside on the fix is that it lifts constraints from af86ca4e3088 where the sanitize_stack_off relative to r10 must be the same when coming from different paths. The BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC gets emitted after a BPF_STX or BPF_ST instruction. This happens either when we store a pointer or data value to the BPF stack for the first time, or upon later pointer spills. The former needs to be enforced since otherwise stale stack data could be leaked under speculation as outlined earlier. For non-x86 JITs the BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC mapping is currently optimized away, but others could emit a speculation barrier as well if necessary. For real-world unprivileged programs e.g. generated by LLVM, pointer spill/fill is only generated upon register pressure and LLVM only tries to do that for pointers which are not used often. The program main impact will be the initial BPF_ST | BPF_NOSPEC sanitation for the STACK_INVALID case when the first write to a stack slot occurs e.g. upon map lookup. In future we might refine ways to mitigate the latter cost. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05178.pdf [1] https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2018/05/21/analysis-and-mitigation-of-speculative-store-bypass-cve-2018-3639/ [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.05725.pdf Fixes: af86ca4e3088 ("bpf: Prevent memory disambiguation attack") Fixes: f7cf25b2026d ("bpf: track spill/fill of constants") Co-developed-by: Piotr Krysiuk Co-developed-by: Benedict Schlueter Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk Signed-off-by: Benedict Schlueter Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov [OP: - apply check_stack_write_fixed_off() changes in check_stack_write() - replace env->bypass_spec_v4 -> env->allow_ptr_leaks] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Introduce BPF nospec instruction for mitigating Spectre v4

2021-09-22T09:47:58Z

commit f5e81d1117501546b7be050c5fbafa6efd2c722c upstream. In case of JITs, each of the JIT backends compiles the BPF nospec instruction /either/ to a machine instruction which emits a speculation barrier /or/ to /no/ machine instruction in case the underlying architecture is not affected by Speculative Store Bypass or has different mitigations in place already. This covers both x86 and (implicitly) arm64: In case of x86, we use 'lfence' instruction for mitigation. In case of arm64, we rely on the firmware mitigation as controlled via the ssbd kernel parameter. Whenever the mitigation is enabled, it works for all of the kernel code with no need to provide any additional instructions here (hence only comment in arm64 JIT). Other archs can follow as needed. The BPF nospec instruction is specifically targeting Spectre v4 since i) we don't use a serialization barrier for the Spectre v1 case, and ii) mitigation instructions for v1 and v4 might be different on some archs. The BPF nospec is required for a future commit, where the BPF verifier does annotate intermediate BPF programs with speculation barriers. Co-developed-by: Piotr Krysiuk Co-developed-by: Benedict Schlueter Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Piotr Krysiuk Signed-off-by: Benedict Schlueter Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov [OP: adjusted context for 4.19, drop riscv and ppc32 changes] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: track spill/fill of constants

2021-09-22T09:47:58Z

commit f7cf25b2026dc8441e0fa3a202c2aa8a56211e30 upstream. Compilers often spill induction variables into the stack, hence it is necessary for the verifier to track scalar values of the registers through stack slots. Also few bpf programs were incorrectly rejected in the past, since the verifier was not able to track such constants while they were used to compute offsets into packet headers. Tracking constants through the stack significantly decreases the chances of state pruning, since two different constants are considered to be different by state equivalency. End result that cilium tests suffer serious degradation in the number of states processed and corresponding verification time increase. before after bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 1838 6441 bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3218 5908 bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1064 1064 bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 26935 93790 bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 34439 123886 bpf_netdev.o 9721 31413 bpf_overlay.o 6184 18561 bpf_lxc_jit.o 39389 359445 After further debugging turned out that cillium progs are getting hurt by clang due to the same constant tracking issue. Newer clang generates better code by spilling less to the stack. Instead it keeps more constants in the registers which hurts state pruning since the verifier already tracks constants in the registers: old clang new clang (no spill/fill tracking introduced by this patch) bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 1838 1923 bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3218 3077 bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1064 1062 bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 26935 166729 bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 34439 174607 bpf_netdev.o 9721 8407 bpf_overlay.o 6184 5420 bpf_lcx_jit.o 39389 39389 The final table is depressing: old clang old clang new clang new clang const spill/fill const spill/fill bpf_lb-DLB_L3.o 1838 6441 1923 8128 bpf_lb-DLB_L4.o 3218 5908 3077 6707 bpf_lb-DUNKNOWN.o 1064 1064 1062 1062 bpf_lxc-DDROP_ALL.o 26935 93790 166729 380712 bpf_lxc-DUNKNOWN.o 34439 123886 174607 440652 bpf_netdev.o 9721 31413 8407 31904 bpf_overlay.o 6184 18561 5420 23569 bpf_lxc_jit.o 39389 359445 39389 359445 Tracking constants in the registers hurts state pruning already. Adding tracking of constants through stack hurts pruning even more. The later patch address this general constant tracking issue with coarse/precise logic. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann [OP: - drop verbose_linfo() calls, as the function is not implemented in 4.19 - adjust mark_reg_read() calls to match the prototype in 4.19] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Sanity check max value for var_off stack access

2021-09-22T09:47:58Z

commit 107c26a70ca81bfc33657366ad69d02fdc9efc9d upstream. As discussed in [1] max value of variable offset has to be checked for overflow on stack access otherwise verifier would accept code like this: 0: (b7) r2 = 6 1: (b7) r3 = 28 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = 0 3: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 4: (79) r4 = *(u64 *)(r1 +168) 5: (c5) if r4 s< 0x0 goto pc+4 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R2=inv6 R3=inv28 R4=inv(id=0,umax_value=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fffffffffffffff)) R10=fp0,call_-1 fp-8=mmmmmmmm fp-16=mmmmmmmm 6: (17) r4 -= 16 7: (0f) r4 += r10 8: (b7) r5 = 8 9: (85) call bpf_getsockopt#57 10: (b7) r0 = 0 11: (95) exit , where R4 obviosly has unbounded max value. Fix it by checking that reg->smax_value is inside (-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF; BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) range. reg->smax_value is used instead of reg->umax_value because stack pointers are calculated using negative offset from fp. This is opposite to e.g. map access where offset must be non-negative and where umax_value is used. Also dedicated verbose logs are added for both min and max bound check failures to have diagnostics consistent with variable offset handling in check_map_access(). [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=155433357510597&w=2 Fixes: 2011fccfb61b ("bpf: Support variable offset stack access from helpers") Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in unpriv mode

2021-09-22T09:47:58Z

commit 088ec26d9c2da9d879ab73e3f4117f9df6c566ee upstream. Proper support of indirect stack access with variable offset in unprivileged mode (!root) requires corresponding support in Spectre masking for stack ALU in retrieve_ptr_limit(). There are no use-case for variable offset in unprivileged mode though so make verifier reject such accesses for simplicity. Pointer arithmetics is one (and only?) way to cause variable offset and it's already rejected in unpriv mode so that verifier won't even get to helper function whose argument contains variable offset, e.g.: 0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = 0 1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 2: (61) r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +0) 3: (57) r2 &= 4 4: (17) r2 -= 16 5: (0f) r2 += r10 variable stack access var_off=(0xfffffffffffffff0; 0x4) off=-16 size=1R2 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, prohibited for !root Still it looks like a good idea to reject variable offset indirect stack access for unprivileged mode in check_stack_boundary() explicitly. Fixes: 2011fccfb61b ("bpf: Support variable offset stack access from helpers") Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann [OP: drop comment in retrieve_ptr_limit()] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman