user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf, branch v4.9.53

bpf/verifier: fix min/max handling in BPF_SUB

2017-08-30T08:21:44Z

[ Upstream commit 9305706c2e808ae59f1eb201867f82f1ddf6d7a6 ] We have to subtract the src max from the dst min, and vice-versa, since (e.g.) the smallest result comes from the largest subtrahend. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Edward Cree Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: David S. Miller 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, verifier: fix alu ops against map_value{, _adj} register types

2017-08-30T08:21:43Z

[ Upstream commit fce366a9dd0ddc47e7ce05611c266e8574a45116 ] While looking into map_value_adj, I noticed that alu operations directly on the map_value() resp. map_value_adj() register (any alu operation on a map_value() register will turn it into a map_value_adj() typed register) are not sufficiently protected against some of the operations. Two non-exhaustive examples are provided that the verifier needs to reject: i) BPF_AND on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0xbf842a00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (57) r0 &= 8 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=8 R10=fp 9: (95) exit from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit processed 10 insns ii) BPF_ADD in 32 bit mode on r0 (map_value_adj): 0: (bf) r2 = r10 1: (07) r2 += -8 2: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 +0) = 0 3: (18) r1 = 0xc24eee00 5: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 6: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+2 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 7: (04) (u32) r0 += (u32) 0 8: (7a) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = 22 R0=map_value_adj(ks=8,vs=48,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit from 6 to 9: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R10=fp 9: (95) exit processed 10 insns Issue is, while min_value / max_value boundaries for the access are adjusted appropriately, we change the pointer value in a way that cannot be sufficiently tracked anymore from its origin. Operations like BPF_{AND,OR,DIV,MUL,etc} on a destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} was probably unintended, in fact, all the test cases coming with 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") perform BPF_ADD only on the destination register that is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ. Only for UNKNOWN_VALUE register types such operations make sense, f.e. with unknown memory content fetched initially from a constant offset from the map value memory into a register. That register is then later tested against lower / upper bounds, so that the verifier can then do the tracking of min_value / max_value, and properly check once that UNKNOWN_VALUE register is added to the destination register with type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ}. This is also what the original use-case is solving. Note, tracking on what is being added is done through adjust_reg_min_max_vals() and later access to the map value enforced with these boundaries and the given offset from the insn through check_map_access_adj(). Tests will fail for non-root environment due to prohibited pointer arithmetic, in particular in check_alu_op(), we bail out on the is_pointer_value() check on the dst_reg (which is false in root case as we allow for pointer arithmetic via env->allow_ptr_leaks). Similarly to PTR_TO_PACKET, one way to fix it is to restrict the allowed operations on PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE{,_ADJ} registers to 64 bit mode BPF_ADD. The test_verifier suite runs fine after the patch and it also rejects mentioned test cases. Fixes: 484611357c19 ("bpf: allow access into map value arrays") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: adjust verifier heuristics

2017-08-30T08:21:43Z

[ Upstream commit 3c2ce60bdd3d57051bf85615deec04a694473840 ] Current limits with regards to processing program paths do not really reflect today's needs anymore due to programs becoming more complex and verifier smarter, keeping track of more data such as const ALU operations, alignment tracking, spilling of PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_ADJ registers, and other features allowing for smarter matching of what LLVM generates. This also comes with the side-effect that we result in fewer opportunities to prune search states and thus often need to do more work to prove safety than in the past due to different register states and stack layout where we mismatch. Generally, it's quite hard to determine what caused a sudden increase in complexity, it could be caused by something as trivial as a single branch somewhere at the beginning of the program where LLVM assigned a stack slot that is marked differently throughout other branches and thus causing a mismatch, where verifier then needs to prove safety for the whole rest of the program. Subsequently, programs with even less than half the insn size limit can get rejected. We noticed that while some programs load fine under pre 4.11, they get rejected due to hitting limits on more recent kernels. We saw that in the vast majority of cases (90+%) pruning failed due to register mismatches. In case of stack mismatches, majority of cases failed due to different stack slot types (invalid, spill, misc) rather than differences in spilled registers. This patch makes pruning more aggressive by also adding markers that sit at conditional jumps as well. Currently, we only mark jump targets for pruning. For example in direct packet access, these are usually error paths where we bail out. We found that adding these markers, it can reduce number of processed insns by up to 30%. Another option is to ignore reg->id in probing PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL registers, which can help pruning slightly as well by up to 7% observed complexity reduction as stand-alone. Meaning, if a previous path with register type PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL for map X was found to be safe, then in the current state a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL register for the same map X must be safe as well. Last but not least the patch also adds a scheduling point and bumps the current limit for instructions to be processed to a more adequate value. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf, verifier: add additional patterns to evaluate_reg_imm_alu

2017-08-30T08:21:43Z

[ Upstream commit 43188702b3d98d2792969a3377a30957f05695e6 ] Currently the verifier does not track imm across alu operations when the source register is of unknown type. This adds additional pattern matching to catch this and track imm. We've seen LLVM generating this pattern while working on cilium. Signed-off-by: John Fastabend Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: prevent leaking pointer via xadd on unpriviledged

2017-07-21T05:42:18Z

commit 6bdf6abc56b53103324dfd270a86580306e1a232 upstream. Leaking kernel addresses on unpriviledged is generally disallowed, for example, verifier rejects the following: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400 3: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r2 R2 leaks addr into ctx Doing pointer arithmetic on them is also forbidden, so that they don't turn into unknown value and then get leaked out. However, there's xadd as a special case, where we don't check the src reg for being a pointer register, e.g. the following will pass: 0: (b7) r0 = 0 1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r1 +48) = r0 2: (18) r2 = 0xffff897e82304400 ; map 4: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r1 +48) += r2 5: (95) exit We could store the pointer into skb->cb, loose the type context, and then read it out from there again to leak it eventually out of a map value. Or more easily in a different variant, too: 0: (bf) r6 = r1 1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 0 2: (bf) r2 = r10 3: (07) r2 += -8 4: (18) r1 = 0x0 6: (85) call bpf_map_lookup_elem#1 7: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+3 R0=map_value(ks=8,vs=8,id=0),min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp 8: (b7) r3 = 0 9: (7b) *(u64 *)(r0 +0) = r3 10: (db) lock *(u64 *)(r0 +0) += r6 11: (b7) r0 = 0 12: (95) exit from 7 to 11: R0=inv,min_value=0,max_value=0 R6=ctx R10=fp 11: (b7) r0 = 0 12: (95) exit Prevent this by checking xadd src reg for pointer types. Also add a couple of test cases related to this. Fixes: 1be7f75d1668 ("bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs") Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Edward Cree Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: don't trigger OOM killer under pressure with map alloc

2017-07-05T12:40:21Z

[ Upstream commit d407bd25a204bd66b7346dde24bd3d37ef0e0b05 ] This patch adds two helpers, bpf_map_area_alloc() and bpf_map_area_free(), that are to be used for map allocations. Using kmalloc() for very large allocations can cause excessive work within the page allocator, so i) fall back earlier to vmalloc() when the attempt is considered costly anyway, and even more importantly ii) don't trigger OOM killer with any of the allocators. Since this is based on a user space request, for example, when creating maps with element pre-allocation, we really want such requests to fail instead of killing other user space processes. Also, don't spam the kernel log with warnings should any of the allocations fail under pressure. Given that, we can make backend selection in bpf_map_area_alloc() generic, and convert all maps over to use this API for spots with potentially large allocation requests. Note, replacing the one kmalloc_array() is fine as overflow checks happen earlier in htab_map_alloc(), since it must also protect the multiplication for vmalloc() should kmalloc_array() fail. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: don't let ldimm64 leak map addresses on unprivileged

2017-05-14T12:00:21Z

[ Upstream commit 0d0e57697f162da4aa218b5feafe614fb666db07 ] The patch fixes two things at once: 1) It checks the env->allow_ptr_leaks and only prints the map address to the log if we have the privileges to do so, otherwise it just dumps 0 as we would when kptr_restrict is enabled on %pK. Given the latter is off by default and not every distro sets it, I don't want to rely on this, hence the 0 by default for unprivileged. 2) Printing of ldimm64 in the verifier log is currently broken in that we don't print the full immediate, but only the 32 bit part of the first insn part for ldimm64. Thus, fix this up as well; it's okay to access, since we verified all ldimm64 earlier already (including just constants) through replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(). Fixes: 1be7f75d1668 ("bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs") Fixes: cbd357008604 ("bpf: verifier (add ability to receive verification log)") Reported-by: Jann Horn Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: enhance verifier to understand stack pointer arithmetic

2017-05-14T12:00:20Z

[ Upstream commit 332270fdc8b6fba07d059a9ad44df9e1a2ad4529 ] llvm 4.0 and above generates the code like below: .... 440: (b7) r1 = 15 441: (05) goto pc+73 515: (79) r6 = *(u64 *)(r10 -152) 516: (bf) r7 = r10 517: (07) r7 += -112 518: (bf) r2 = r7 519: (0f) r2 += r1 520: (71) r1 = *(u8 *)(r8 +0) 521: (73) *(u8 *)(r2 +45) = r1 .... and the verifier complains "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'" for insn #521. This is because verifier marks register r2 as unknown value after #519 where r2 is a stack pointer and r1 holds a constant value. Teach verifier to recognize "stack_ptr + imm" and "stack_ptr + reg with const val" as valid stack_ptr with new offset. Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: improve verifier packet range checks

2017-05-03T15:36:35Z

[ Upstream commit b1977682a3858b5584ffea7cfb7bd863f68db18d ] llvm can optimize the 'if (ptr > data_end)' checks to be in the order slightly different than the original C code which will confuse verifier. Like: if (ptr + 16 > data_end) return TC_ACT_SHOT; // may be followed by if (ptr + 14 > data_end) return TC_ACT_SHOT; while llvm can see that 'ptr' is valid for all 16 bytes, the verifier could not. Fix verifier logic to account for such case and add a test. Reported-by: Huapeng Zhou Fixes: 969bf05eb3ce ("bpf: direct packet access") Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: David S. Miller Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman