From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:24:58 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039611 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4Z5HMkz9sML; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:34 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45w-0003Ur-Do; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:28 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45u-0003TH-5x for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:26 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45t-0004w8-GZ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:25 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 01/13] bpf: properly enforce index mask to prevent out-of-bounds speculation Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:24:58 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-2-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann While reviewing the verifier code, I recently noticed that the following two program variants in relation to tail calls can be loaded. Variant 1: # bpftool p d x i 15 0: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3 1: (18) r2 = map[id:5] 3: (05) goto pc+2 4: (18) r2 = map[id:6] 6: (b7) r3 = 7 7: (35) if r3 >= 0xa0 goto pc+2 8: (54) (u32) r3 &= (u32) 255 9: (85) call bpf_tail_call#12 10: (b7) r0 = 1 11: (95) exit # bpftool m s i 5 5: prog_array flags 0x0 key 4B value 4B max_entries 4 memlock 4096B # bpftool m s i 6 6: prog_array flags 0x0 key 4B value 4B max_entries 160 memlock 4096B Variant 2: # bpftool p d x i 20 0: (15) if r1 == 0x0 goto pc+3 1: (18) r2 = map[id:8] 3: (05) goto pc+2 4: (18) r2 = map[id:7] 6: (b7) r3 = 7 7: (35) if r3 >= 0x4 goto pc+2 8: (54) (u32) r3 &= (u32) 3 9: (85) call bpf_tail_call#12 10: (b7) r0 = 1 11: (95) exit # bpftool m s i 8 8: prog_array flags 0x0 key 4B value 4B max_entries 160 memlock 4096B # bpftool m s i 7 7: prog_array flags 0x0 key 4B value 4B max_entries 4 memlock 4096B In both cases the index masking inserted by the verifier in order to control out of bounds speculation from a CPU via b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") seems to be incorrect in what it is enforcing. In the 1st variant, the mask is applied from the map with the significantly larger number of entries where we would allow to a certain degree out of bounds speculation for the smaller map, and in the 2nd variant where the mask is applied from the map with the smaller number of entries, we get buggy behavior since we truncate the index of the larger map. The original intent from commit b2157399cc98 is to reject such occasions where two or more different tail call maps are used in the same tail call helper invocation. However, the check on the BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON is never hit since we never poisoned the saved pointer in the first place! We do this explicitly for map lookups but in case of tail calls we basically used the tail call map in insn_aux_data that was processed in the most recent path which the verifier walked. Thus any prior path that stored a pointer in insn_aux_data at the helper location was always overridden. Fix it by moving the map pointer poison logic into a small helper that covers both BPF helpers with the same logic. After that in fixup_bpf_calls() the poison check is then hit for tail calls and the program rejected. Latter only happens in unprivileged case since this is the *only* occasion where a rewrite needs to happen, and where such rewrite is specific to the map (max_entries, index_mask). In the privileged case the rewrite is generic for the insn->imm / insn->code update so multiple maps from different paths can be handled just fine since all the remaining logic happens in the instruction processing itself. This is similar to the case of map lookups: in case there is a collision of maps in fixup_bpf_calls() we must skip the inlined rewrite since this will turn the generic instruction sequence into a non- generic one. Thus the patch_call_imm will simply update the insn->imm location where the bpf_map_lookup_elem() will later take care of the dispatch. Given we need this 'poison' state as a check, the information of whether a map is an unpriv_array gets lost, so enforcing it prior to that needs an additional state. In general this check is needed since there are some complex and tail call intensive BPF programs out there where LLVM tends to generate such code occasionally. We therefore convert the map_ptr rather into map_state to store all this w/o extra memory overhead, and the bit whether one of the maps involved in the collision was from an unpriv_array thus needs to be retained as well there. Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2017-5753 (backported from commit c93552c443ebc63b14e26e46d2e76941c88e0d71) [tyhicks: Different members in the union inside bpf_insn_aux_data] [tyhicks: check_func_call() is check_call() in older kernels] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 2 +- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index fdcfc5796bc4..f4a0af1e06fa 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state_list { struct bpf_insn_aux_data { union { enum bpf_reg_type ptr_type; /* pointer type for load/store insns */ - struct bpf_map *map_ptr; /* pointer for call insn into lookup_elem */ + unsigned long map_state; /* pointer/poison value for maps */ }; int ctx_field_size; /* the ctx field size for load insn, maybe 0 */ int sanitize_stack_off; /* stack slot to be cleared */ diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 0363e7df634a..200b25335984 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -154,7 +154,29 @@ struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem { #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS 131072 #define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK 1024 -#define BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON ((void *)0xeB9F + POISON_POINTER_DELTA) +#define BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV 1UL +#define BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON ((void *)((0xeB9FUL << 1) + \ + POISON_POINTER_DELTA)) +#define BPF_MAP_PTR(X) ((struct bpf_map *)((X) & ~BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV)) + +static bool bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(const struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux) +{ + return BPF_MAP_PTR(aux->map_state) == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON; +} + +static bool bpf_map_ptr_unpriv(const struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux) +{ + return aux->map_state & BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV; +} + +static void bpf_map_ptr_store(struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux, + const struct bpf_map *map, bool unpriv) +{ + BUILD_BUG_ON((unsigned long)BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON & BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV); + unpriv |= bpf_map_ptr_unpriv(aux); + aux->map_state = (unsigned long)map | + (unpriv ? BPF_MAP_PTR_UNPRIV : 0UL); +} struct bpf_call_arg_meta { struct bpf_map *map_ptr; @@ -1732,6 +1754,29 @@ static void clear_all_pkt_pointers(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) } } +static int +record_func_map(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_call_arg_meta *meta, + int func_id, int insn_idx) +{ + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx]; + + if (func_id != BPF_FUNC_tail_call && + func_id != BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem) + return 0; + if (meta->map_ptr == NULL) { + verbose(env, "kernel subsystem misconfigured verifier\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } + + if (!BPF_MAP_PTR(aux->map_state)) + bpf_map_ptr_store(aux, meta->map_ptr, + meta->map_ptr->unpriv_array); + else if (BPF_MAP_PTR(aux->map_state) != meta->map_ptr) + bpf_map_ptr_store(aux, BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON, + meta->map_ptr->unpriv_array); + return 0; +} + static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) { const struct bpf_func_proto *fn = NULL; @@ -1790,13 +1835,6 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) err = check_func_arg(env, BPF_REG_2, fn->arg2_type, &meta); if (err) return err; - if (func_id == BPF_FUNC_tail_call) { - if (meta.map_ptr == NULL) { - verbose(env, "verifier bug\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].map_ptr = meta.map_ptr; - } err = check_func_arg(env, BPF_REG_3, fn->arg3_type, &meta); if (err) return err; @@ -1807,6 +1845,10 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) if (err) return err; + err = record_func_map(env, &meta, func_id, insn_idx); + if (err) + return err; + /* Mark slots with STACK_MISC in case of raw mode, stack offset * is inferred from register state. */ @@ -1831,8 +1873,6 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_VOID) { regs[BPF_REG_0].type = NOT_INIT; } else if (fn->ret_type == RET_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL) { - struct bpf_insn_aux_data *insn_aux; - regs[BPF_REG_0].type = PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE_OR_NULL; /* There is no offset yet applied, variable or fixed */ mark_reg_known_zero(env, regs, BPF_REG_0); @@ -1848,11 +1888,6 @@ static int check_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int func_id, int insn_idx) } regs[BPF_REG_0].map_ptr = meta.map_ptr; regs[BPF_REG_0].id = ++env->id_gen; - insn_aux = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx]; - if (!insn_aux->map_ptr) - insn_aux->map_ptr = meta.map_ptr; - else if (insn_aux->map_ptr != meta.map_ptr) - insn_aux->map_ptr = BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON; } else { verbose(env, "unknown return type %d of func %s#%d\n", fn->ret_type, func_id_name(func_id), func_id); @@ -4548,6 +4583,7 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) struct bpf_insn *insn = prog->insnsi; const struct bpf_func_proto *fn; const int insn_cnt = prog->len; + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux; struct bpf_insn insn_buf[16]; struct bpf_prog *new_prog; struct bpf_map *map_ptr; @@ -4596,19 +4632,22 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) insn->imm = 0; insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL; + aux = &env->insn_aux_data[i + delta]; + if (!bpf_map_ptr_unpriv(aux)) + continue; + /* instead of changing every JIT dealing with tail_call * emit two extra insns: * if (index >= max_entries) goto out; * index &= array->index_mask; * to avoid out-of-bounds cpu speculation */ - map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr; - if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON) { + if (bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(aux)) { verbose(env, "tail_call abusing map_ptr\n"); return -EINVAL; } - if (!map_ptr->unpriv_array) - continue; + + map_ptr = BPF_MAP_PTR(aux->map_state); insn_buf[0] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_3, map_ptr->max_entries, 2); insn_buf[1] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_3, @@ -4632,9 +4671,12 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) */ if (ebpf_jit_enabled() && BITS_PER_LONG == 64 && insn->imm == BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem) { - map_ptr = env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].map_ptr; - if (map_ptr == BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON || - !map_ptr->ops->map_gen_lookup) + aux = &env->insn_aux_data[i + delta]; + if (bpf_map_ptr_poisoned(aux)) + goto patch_call_imm; + + map_ptr = BPF_MAP_PTR(aux->map_state); + if (!map_ptr->ops->map_gen_lookup) goto patch_call_imm; cnt = map_ptr->ops->map_gen_lookup(map_ptr, insn_buf); From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:24:59 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039612 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4f2q0Pz9sN1; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:38 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45z-0003X8-VT; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:31 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45v-0003U9-Nm for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:27 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45u-0004w8-Vr; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:27 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 02/13] bpf/verifier: disallow pointer subtraction Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:24:59 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-3-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Alexei Starovoitov BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1815259 Subtraction of pointers was accidentally allowed for unpriv programs by commit 82abbf8d2fc4. Revert that part of commit. Fixes: 82abbf8d2fc4 ("bpf: do not allow root to mangle valid pointers") Reported-by: Jann Horn Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann (cherry picked from commit dd066823db2ac4e22f721ec85190817b58059a54) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 200b25335984..70497384cf91 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2427,7 +2427,7 @@ static int adjust_reg_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * an arbitrary scalar. Disallow all math except * pointer subtraction */ - if (opcode == BPF_SUB){ + if (opcode == BPF_SUB && env->allow_ptr_leaks) { mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, insn->dst_reg); return 0; } From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:00 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039613 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4g3cjCz9sMr; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:39 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt460-0003XO-Cb; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:32 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45w-0003VA-Tu for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:28 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45w-0004w8-BX; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:28 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 03/13] bpf: move {prev_,}insn_idx into verifier env Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:00 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-4-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann Move prev_insn_idx and insn_idx from the do_check() function into the verifier environment, so they can be read inside the various helper functions for handling the instructions. It's easier to put this into the environment rather than changing all call-sites only to pass it along. insn_idx is useful in particular since this later on allows to hold state in env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx]. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit c08435ec7f2bc8f4109401f696fd55159b4b40cb) [tyhicks: Backport around missing verbose logging message] [tyhicks: Backport around minor whitespace difference] [tyhicks: Backport around lack of bpf function call support] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 2 ++ kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index f4a0af1e06fa..70952abb24cb 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ struct bpf_ext_analyzer_ops { * one verifier_env per bpf_check() call */ struct bpf_verifier_env { + u32 insn_idx; + u32 prev_insn_idx; struct bpf_prog *prog; /* eBPF program being verified */ const struct bpf_verifier_ops *ops; struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem *head; /* stack of verifier states to be processed */ diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 70497384cf91..52570eaa204f 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -3927,7 +3927,6 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) struct bpf_insn *insns = env->prog->insnsi; struct bpf_reg_state *regs; int insn_cnt = env->prog->len; - int insn_idx, prev_insn_idx = 0; int insn_processed = 0; bool do_print_state = false; @@ -3937,19 +3936,19 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) env->cur_state = state; init_reg_state(env, state->regs); state->parent = NULL; - insn_idx = 0; + for (;;) { struct bpf_insn *insn; u8 class; int err; - if (insn_idx >= insn_cnt) { + if (env->insn_idx >= insn_cnt) { verbose(env, "invalid insn idx %d insn_cnt %d\n", - insn_idx, insn_cnt); + env->insn_idx, insn_cnt); return -EFAULT; } - insn = &insns[insn_idx]; + insn = &insns[env->insn_idx]; class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code); if (++insn_processed > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS) { @@ -3959,7 +3958,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -E2BIG; } - err = is_state_visited(env, insn_idx); + err = is_state_visited(env, env->insn_idx); if (err < 0) return err; if (err == 1) { @@ -3967,9 +3966,9 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (env->log.level) { if (do_print_state) verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d: safe\n", - prev_insn_idx, insn_idx); + env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx); else - verbose(env, "%d: safe\n", insn_idx); + verbose(env, "%d: safe\n", env->insn_idx); } goto process_bpf_exit; } @@ -3979,26 +3978,27 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (env->log.level > 1 || (env->log.level && do_print_state)) { if (env->log.level > 1) - verbose(env, "%d:", insn_idx); + verbose(env, "%d:", env->insn_idx); else verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d:", - prev_insn_idx, insn_idx); + env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx); print_verifier_state(env, state); do_print_state = false; } if (env->log.level) { - verbose(env, "%d: ", insn_idx); + verbose(env, "%d: ", env->insn_idx); print_bpf_insn(verbose, env, insn, env->allow_ptr_leaks); } - err = ext_analyzer_insn_hook(env, insn_idx, prev_insn_idx); + err = ext_analyzer_insn_hook(env, env->insn_idx, env->prev_insn_idx); if (err) return err; regs = cur_regs(env); - env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true; + env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = true; + if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) { err = check_alu_op(env, insn); if (err) @@ -4023,13 +4023,13 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) /* check that memory (src_reg + off) is readable, * the state of dst_reg will be updated by this func */ - err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->src_reg, insn->off, - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_READ, - insn->dst_reg, false); + err = check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->src_reg, + insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), + BPF_READ, insn->dst_reg, false); if (err) return err; - prev_src_type = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].ptr_type; + prev_src_type = &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].ptr_type; if (*prev_src_type == NOT_INIT) { /* saw a valid insn @@ -4056,10 +4056,10 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) enum bpf_reg_type *prev_dst_type, dst_reg_type; if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_XADD) { - err = check_xadd(env, insn_idx, insn); + err = check_xadd(env, env->insn_idx, insn); if (err) return err; - insn_idx++; + env->insn_idx++; continue; } @@ -4075,13 +4075,13 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) dst_reg_type = regs[insn->dst_reg].type; /* check that memory (dst_reg + off) is writeable */ - err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, - insn->src_reg, false); + err = check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, + insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), + BPF_WRITE, insn->src_reg, false); if (err) return err; - prev_dst_type = &env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].ptr_type; + prev_dst_type = &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].ptr_type; if (*prev_dst_type == NOT_INIT) { *prev_dst_type = dst_reg_type; @@ -4110,9 +4110,9 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) } /* check that memory (dst_reg + off) is writeable */ - err = check_mem_access(env, insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, - BPF_SIZE(insn->code), BPF_WRITE, - -1, false); + err = check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, insn->dst_reg, + insn->off, BPF_SIZE(insn->code), + BPF_WRITE, -1, false); if (err) return err; @@ -4128,7 +4128,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -EINVAL; } - err = check_call(env, insn->imm, insn_idx); + err = check_call(env, insn->imm, env->insn_idx); if (err) return err; @@ -4141,7 +4141,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -EINVAL; } - insn_idx += insn->off + 1; + env->insn_idx += insn->off + 1; continue; } else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) { @@ -4172,7 +4172,8 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (err) return err; process_bpf_exit: - err = pop_stack(env, &prev_insn_idx, &insn_idx); + err = pop_stack(env, &env->prev_insn_idx, + &env->insn_idx); if (err < 0) { if (err != -ENOENT) return err; @@ -4182,7 +4183,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) continue; } } else { - err = check_cond_jmp_op(env, insn, &insn_idx); + err = check_cond_jmp_op(env, insn, &env->insn_idx); if (err) return err; } @@ -4199,8 +4200,8 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (err) return err; - insn_idx++; - env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].seen = true; + env->insn_idx++; + env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx].seen = true; } else { verbose(env, "invalid BPF_LD mode\n"); return -EINVAL; @@ -4210,7 +4211,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) return -EINVAL; } - insn_idx++; + env->insn_idx++; } verbose(env, "processed %d insns, stack depth %d\n", insn_processed, From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:01 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039614 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4j2PyMz9sN6; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:40 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt461-0003Y5-5q; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:33 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45y-0003WJ-C1 for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:30 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45x-0004w8-Lw; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:29 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 04/13] bpf: move tmp variable into ax register in interpreter Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:01 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-5-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann This change moves the on-stack 64 bit tmp variable in ___bpf_prog_run() into the hidden ax register. The latter is currently only used in JITs for constant blinding as a temporary scratch register, meaning the BPF interpreter will never see the use of ax. Therefore it is safe to use it for the cases where tmp has been used earlier. This is needed to later on allow restricted hidden use of ax in both interpreter and JITs. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit 144cd91c4c2bced6eb8a7e25e590f6618a11e854) [tyhicks: Backport around context changes and missing commit 1ea47e01ad6e] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/filter.h | 3 ++- kernel/bpf/core.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h index e85292a16467..ec944f15f1a4 100644 --- a/include/linux/filter.h +++ b/include/linux/filter.h @@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux; * constants. See JIT pre-step in bpf_jit_blind_constants(). */ #define BPF_REG_AX MAX_BPF_REG -#define MAX_BPF_JIT_REG (MAX_BPF_REG + 1) +#define MAX_BPF_EXT_REG (MAX_BPF_REG + 1) +#define MAX_BPF_JIT_REG MAX_BPF_EXT_REG /* unused opcode to mark special call to bpf_tail_call() helper */ #define BPF_TAIL_CALL 0xf0 diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index 7949e8b8f94e..c8b57f2afbd6 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ #define DST regs[insn->dst_reg] #define SRC regs[insn->src_reg] #define FP regs[BPF_REG_FP] +#define AX regs[BPF_REG_AX] #define ARG1 regs[BPF_REG_ARG1] #define CTX regs[BPF_REG_CTX] #define IMM insn->imm @@ -778,7 +779,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__bpf_call_base); static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, u64 *stack) { - u64 tmp; static const void *jumptable[256] = { [0 ... 255] = &&default_label, /* Now overwrite non-defaults ... */ @@ -952,22 +952,22 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, ALU64_MOD_X: if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) return 0; - div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &tmp); - DST = tmp; + div64_u64_rem(DST, SRC, &AX); + DST = AX; CONT; ALU_MOD_X: if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; - tmp = (u32) DST; - DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); + AX = (u32) DST; + DST = do_div(AX, (u32) SRC); CONT; ALU64_MOD_K: - div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &tmp); - DST = tmp; + div64_u64_rem(DST, IMM, &AX); + DST = AX; CONT; ALU_MOD_K: - tmp = (u32) DST; - DST = do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM); + AX = (u32) DST; + DST = do_div(AX, (u32) IMM); CONT; ALU64_DIV_X: if (unlikely(SRC == 0)) @@ -977,17 +977,17 @@ static unsigned int ___bpf_prog_run(u64 *regs, const struct bpf_insn *insn, ALU_DIV_X: if (unlikely((u32)SRC == 0)) return 0; - tmp = (u32) DST; - do_div(tmp, (u32) SRC); - DST = (u32) tmp; + AX = (u32) DST; + do_div(AX, (u32) SRC); + DST = (u32) AX; CONT; ALU64_DIV_K: DST = div64_u64(DST, IMM); CONT; ALU_DIV_K: - tmp = (u32) DST; - do_div(tmp, (u32) IMM); - DST = (u32) tmp; + AX = (u32) DST; + do_div(AX, (u32) IMM); + DST = (u32) AX; CONT; ALU_END_TO_BE: switch (IMM) { @@ -1291,7 +1291,7 @@ STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(___bpf_prog_run); /* jump table */ static unsigned int PROG_NAME(stack_size)(const void *ctx, const struct bpf_insn *insn) \ { \ u64 stack[stack_size / sizeof(u64)]; \ - u64 regs[MAX_BPF_REG]; \ + u64 regs[MAX_BPF_EXT_REG]; \ \ FP = (u64) (unsigned long) &stack[ARRAY_SIZE(stack)]; \ ARG1 = (u64) (unsigned long) ctx; \ From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:02 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039615 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4l0tm8z9sMp; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:43 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt463-0003ZE-A6; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:35 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45z-0003Wk-FT for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:31 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt45y-0004w8-UH; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:31 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 05/13] bpf: enable access to ax register also from verifier rewrite Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:02 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-6-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann Right now we are using BPF ax register in JIT for constant blinding as well as in interpreter as temporary variable. Verifier will not be able to use it simply because its use will get overridden from the former in bpf_jit_blind_insn(). However, it can be made to work in that blinding will be skipped if there is prior use in either source or destination register on the instruction. Taking constraints of ax into account, the verifier is then open to use it in rewrites under some constraints. Note, ax register already has mappings in every eBPF JIT. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2019-7308 (cherry picked from commit 9b73bfdd08e73231d6a90ae6db4b46b3fbf56c30) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/filter.h | 7 +------ kernel/bpf/core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h index ec944f15f1a4..564e24295a5a 100644 --- a/include/linux/filter.h +++ b/include/linux/filter.h @@ -46,12 +46,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux; #define BPF_REG_X BPF_REG_7 #define BPF_REG_TMP BPF_REG_8 -/* Kernel hidden auxiliary/helper register for hardening step. - * Only used by eBPF JITs. It's nothing more than a temporary - * register that JITs use internally, only that here it's part - * of eBPF instructions that have been rewritten for blinding - * constants. See JIT pre-step in bpf_jit_blind_constants(). - */ +/* Kernel hidden auxiliary/helper register. */ #define BPF_REG_AX MAX_BPF_REG #define MAX_BPF_EXT_REG (MAX_BPF_REG + 1) #define MAX_BPF_JIT_REG MAX_BPF_EXT_REG diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c index c8b57f2afbd6..3cf79f0eac6c 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c @@ -566,6 +566,26 @@ static int bpf_jit_blind_insn(const struct bpf_insn *from, BUILD_BUG_ON(BPF_REG_AX + 1 != MAX_BPF_JIT_REG); BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_BPF_REG + 1 != MAX_BPF_JIT_REG); + /* Constraints on AX register: + * + * AX register is inaccessible from user space. It is mapped in + * all JITs, and used here for constant blinding rewrites. It is + * typically "stateless" meaning its contents are only valid within + * the executed instruction, but not across several instructions. + * There are a few exceptions however which are further detailed + * below. + * + * Constant blinding is only used by JITs, not in the interpreter. + * The interpreter uses AX in some occasions as a local temporary + * register e.g. in DIV or MOD instructions. + * + * In restricted circumstances, the verifier can also use the AX + * register for rewrites as long as they do not interfere with + * the above cases! + */ + if (from->dst_reg == BPF_REG_AX || from->src_reg == BPF_REG_AX) + goto out; + if (from->imm == 0 && (from->code == (BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_K) || from->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K))) { From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:03 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039617 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4s4FvGz9sMp; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:49 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt469-0003ei-Uv; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:41 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt461-0003Xb-3r for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:33 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt460-0004w8-4O; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:32 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 06/13] bpf: restrict map value pointer arithmetic for unprivileged Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:03 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-7-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (cherry picked from commit 0d6303db7970e6f56ae700fa07e11eb510cda125) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 52570eaa204f..b795798f251c 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2151,6 +2151,17 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); + + /* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds + * in order to be able to sanitize access later on. + */ + if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE && + check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) { + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, prohibited for !root\n", + dst); + return -EACCES; + } + return 0; } From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:04 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039616 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4q4mzBz9sMp; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:47 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt467-0003cl-A9; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:39 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt463-0003YY-B5 for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:35 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt461-0004w8-AN; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:33 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 07/13] bpf: restrict stack pointer arithmetic for unprivileged Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:04 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-8-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit e4298d25830a866cc0f427d4bccb858e76715859) [tyhicks: Backport around context differences in check_mem_access()] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index b795798f251c..ab9901521594 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -844,6 +844,31 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } } +static int check_stack_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + const struct bpf_reg_state *reg, + int off, int size) +{ + /* Stack accesses must be at a fixed offset, so that we + * can determine what type of data were returned. See + * check_stack_read(). + */ + if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) { + char tn_buf[48]; + + tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off); + verbose(env, "variable stack access var_off=%s off=%d size=%d", + tn_buf, off, size); + return -EACCES; + } + + if (off >= 0 || off < -MAX_BPF_STACK) { + verbose(env, "invalid stack off=%d size=%d\n", off, size); + return -EACCES; + } + + return 0; +} + /* check read/write into map element returned by bpf_map_lookup_elem() */ static int __check_map_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, int off, int size, bool zero_size_allowed) @@ -1249,24 +1274,10 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn } } else if (reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK) { - /* stack accesses must be at a fixed offset, so that we can - * determine what type of data were returned. - * See check_stack_read(). - */ - if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) { - char tn_buf[48]; - - tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off); - verbose(env, "variable stack access var_off=%s off=%d size=%d", - tn_buf, off, size); - return -EACCES; - } off += reg->var_off.value; - if (off >= 0 || off < -MAX_BPF_STACK) { - verbose(env, "invalid stack off=%d size=%d\n", off, - size); - return -EACCES; - } + err = check_stack_access(env, reg, off, size); + if (err) + return err; if (env->prog->aux->stack_depth < -off) env->prog->aux->stack_depth = -off; @@ -2155,11 +2166,19 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* For unprivileged we require that resulting offset must be in bounds * in order to be able to sanitize access later on. */ - if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE && - check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) { - verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, prohibited for !root\n", - dst); - return -EACCES; + if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks) { + if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE && + check_map_access(env, dst, dst_reg->off, 1, false)) { + verbose(env, "R%d pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range, " + "prohibited for !root\n", dst); + return -EACCES; + } else if (dst_reg->type == PTR_TO_STACK && + check_stack_access(env, dst_reg, dst_reg->off + + dst_reg->var_off.value, 1)) { + verbose(env, "R%d stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, " + "prohibited for !root\n", dst); + return -EACCES; + } } return 0; From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:05 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039618 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4t4ktDz9sN1; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:50 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46A-0003fN-Dw; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:42 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt463-0003ZM-J8 for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:35 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt462-0004w8-Iw; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:34 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 08/13] bpf: restrict unknown scalars of mixed signed bounds for unprivileged Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:05 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-9-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit 9d7eceede769f90b66cfa06ad5b357140d5141ed) [tyhicks: adjust_ptr_min_max_vals() uses if statements, not a switch] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index ab9901521594..711766ff00e5 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1985,8 +1985,8 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, smin_ptr = ptr_reg->smin_value, smax_ptr = ptr_reg->smax_value; u64 umin_val = off_reg->umin_value, umax_val = off_reg->umax_value, umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value; + u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); - u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; dst_reg = ®s[dst]; @@ -2022,6 +2022,13 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst); return -EACCES; } + if (ptr_reg->type == PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE) { + if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && !known && (smin_val < 0) != (smax_val < 0)) { + verbose(env, "R%d has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root\n", + off_reg == dst_reg ? dst : src); + return -EACCES; + } + } /* In case of 'scalar += pointer', dst_reg inherits pointer type and id. * The id may be overwritten later if we create a new variable offset. From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:06 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039619 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ4x5cv5z9sMr; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:53 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46D-0003h4-52; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:45 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt464-0003aF-Lt for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:36 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt463-0004w8-P7; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:36 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 09/13] bpf: fix check_map_access smin_value test when pointer contains offset Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:06 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-10-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (cherry picked from commit b7137c4eab85c1cf3d46acdde90ce1163b28c873) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 711766ff00e5..f2e00c7932fa 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -899,13 +899,17 @@ static int check_map_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno, */ if (env->log.level) print_verifier_state(env, state); + /* The minimum value is only important with signed * comparisons where we can't assume the floor of a * value is 0. If we are using signed variables for our * index'es we need to make sure that whatever we use * will have a set floor within our range. */ - if (reg->smin_value < 0) { + if (reg->smin_value < 0 && + (reg->smin_value == S64_MIN || + (off + reg->smin_value != (s64)(s32)(off + reg->smin_value)) || + reg->smin_value + off < 0)) { verbose(env, "R%d min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.\n", regno); return -EACCES; From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:07 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039620 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ501QQwz9sN1; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:56 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46F-0003im-DS; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:47 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt467-0003bf-Jg for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:39 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt464-0004w8-Ul; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:37 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 10/13] bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:07 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-11-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit 979d63d50c0c0f7bc537bf821e056cc9fe5abd38) [tyhicks: Considerable context differences] [tyhicks: Place speculative member of bpf_verifier_state struct above allocated_stack member so that the memcpy() in copy_verifier_state() works as expected] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 10 +++ kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index 70952abb24cb..d4a72f52dc46 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ struct bpf_stack_state { struct bpf_verifier_state { struct bpf_reg_state regs[MAX_BPF_REG]; struct bpf_verifier_state *parent; + bool speculative; int allocated_stack; struct bpf_stack_state *stack; }; @@ -109,14 +110,23 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state_list { struct bpf_verifier_state_list *next; }; +/* Possible states for alu_state member. */ +#define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC 1U +#define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST 2U +#define BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE (1U << 2) +#define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE (BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC | \ + BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST) + struct bpf_insn_aux_data { union { enum bpf_reg_type ptr_type; /* pointer type for load/store insns */ unsigned long map_state; /* pointer/poison value for maps */ + u32 alu_limit; /* limit for add/sub register with pointer */ }; int ctx_field_size; /* the ctx field size for load insn, maybe 0 */ int sanitize_stack_off; /* stack slot to be cleared */ bool seen; /* this insn was processed by the verifier */ + u8 alu_state; /* used in combination with alu_limit */ }; #define MAX_USED_MAPS 64 /* max number of maps accessed by one eBPF program */ diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index f2e00c7932fa..c97c663ffc67 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -414,7 +414,8 @@ static int pop_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *prev_insn_idx, } static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, - int insn_idx, int prev_insn_idx) + int insn_idx, int prev_insn_idx, + bool speculative) { struct bpf_verifier_state *cur = env->cur_state; struct bpf_verifier_stack_elem *elem; @@ -432,6 +433,7 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, err = copy_verifier_state(&elem->st, cur); if (err) goto err; + elem->st.speculative |= speculative; if (env->stack_size > BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_STACK) { verbose(env, "BPF program is too complex\n"); goto err; @@ -1973,6 +1975,102 @@ static bool check_reg_sane_offset(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return true; } +static struct bpf_insn_aux_data *cur_aux(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) +{ + return &env->insn_aux_data[env->insn_idx]; +} + +static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, + u32 *ptr_limit, u8 opcode, bool off_is_neg) +{ + bool mask_to_left = (opcode == BPF_ADD && off_is_neg) || + (opcode == BPF_SUB && !off_is_neg); + u32 off; + + switch (ptr_reg->type) { + case PTR_TO_STACK: + off = ptr_reg->off + ptr_reg->var_off.value; + if (mask_to_left) + *ptr_limit = MAX_BPF_STACK + off; + else + *ptr_limit = -off; + return 0; + case PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: + if (mask_to_left) { + *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->umax_value + ptr_reg->off; + } else { + off = ptr_reg->smin_value + ptr_reg->off; + *ptr_limit = ptr_reg->map_ptr->value_size - off; + } + return 0; + default: + return -EINVAL; + } +} + +static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + struct bpf_insn *insn, + const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, + struct bpf_reg_state *dst_reg, + bool off_is_neg) +{ + struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate = env->cur_state; + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env); + bool ptr_is_dst_reg = ptr_reg == dst_reg; + u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); + u32 alu_state, alu_limit; + struct bpf_reg_state tmp; + bool ret; + + if (env->allow_ptr_leaks || BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) + return 0; + + /* We already marked aux for masking from non-speculative + * paths, thus we got here in the first place. We only care + * to explore bad access from here. + */ + if (vstate->speculative) + goto do_sim; + + alu_state = off_is_neg ? BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE : 0; + alu_state |= ptr_is_dst_reg ? + BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC : BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST; + + if (retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg)) + return 0; + + /* If we arrived here from different branches with different + * limits to sanitize, then this won't work. + */ + if (aux->alu_state && + (aux->alu_state != alu_state || + aux->alu_limit != alu_limit)) + return -EACCES; + + /* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */ + aux->alu_state = alu_state; + aux->alu_limit = alu_limit; + +do_sim: + /* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under + * speculative execution from truncation as a result of + * masking when off was not within expected range. If off + * sits in dst, then we temporarily need to move ptr there + * to simulate dst (== 0) +/-= ptr. Needed, for example, + * for cases where we use K-based arithmetic in one direction + * and truncated reg-based in the other in order to explore + * bad access. + */ + if (!ptr_is_dst_reg) { + tmp = *dst_reg; + *dst_reg = *ptr_reg; + } + ret = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, true); + if (!ptr_is_dst_reg) + *dst_reg = tmp; + return !ret ? -EFAULT : 0; +} + /* Handles arithmetic on a pointer and a scalar: computes new min/max and var_off. * Caller should also handle BPF_MOV case separately. * If we return -EACCES, caller may want to try again treating pointer as a @@ -1991,6 +2089,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, umin_ptr = ptr_reg->umin_value, umax_ptr = ptr_reg->umax_value; u32 dst = insn->dst_reg, src = insn->src_reg; u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); + int ret; dst_reg = ®s[dst]; @@ -2046,6 +2145,11 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0); + if (ret < 0) { + verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different maps or paths\n", dst); + return ret; + } /* We can take a fixed offset as long as it doesn't overflow * the s32 'off' field */ @@ -2095,6 +2199,11 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } break; case BPF_SUB: + ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, dst_reg, smin_val < 0); + if (ret < 0) { + verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different maps or paths\n", dst); + return ret; + } if (dst_reg == off_reg) { /* scalar -= pointer. Creates an unknown scalar */ verbose(env, "R%d tried to subtract pointer from scalar\n", @@ -3163,7 +3272,8 @@ static int check_cond_jmp_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } } - other_branch = push_stack(env, *insn_idx + insn->off + 1, *insn_idx); + other_branch = push_stack(env, *insn_idx + insn->off + 1, *insn_idx, + false); if (!other_branch) return -EFAULT; @@ -3801,6 +3911,12 @@ static bool states_equal(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, bool ret = false; int i; + /* Verification state from speculative execution simulation + * must never prune a non-speculative execution one. + */ + if (old->speculative && !cur->speculative) + return false; + idmap = kcalloc(ID_MAP_SIZE, sizeof(struct idpair), GFP_KERNEL); /* If we failed to allocate the idmap, just say it's not safe */ if (!idmap) @@ -3977,6 +4093,7 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) env->cur_state = state; init_reg_state(env, state->regs); state->parent = NULL; + state->speculative = false; for (;;) { struct bpf_insn *insn; @@ -4006,8 +4123,10 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) /* found equivalent state, can prune the search */ if (env->log.level) { if (do_print_state) - verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d: safe\n", - env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx); + verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d%s: safe\n", + env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx, + env->cur_state->speculative ? + " (speculative execution)" : ""); else verbose(env, "%d: safe\n", env->insn_idx); } @@ -4021,8 +4140,10 @@ static int do_check(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) if (env->log.level > 1) verbose(env, "%d:", env->insn_idx); else - verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d:", - env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx); + verbose(env, "\nfrom %d to %d%s:", + env->prev_insn_idx, env->insn_idx, + env->cur_state->speculative ? + " (speculative execution)" : ""); print_verifier_state(env, state); do_print_state = false; } @@ -4650,6 +4771,57 @@ static int fixup_bpf_calls(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) continue; } + if (insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X) || + insn->code == (BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X)) { + const u8 code_add = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X; + const u8 code_sub = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X; + struct bpf_insn insn_buf[16]; + struct bpf_insn *patch = &insn_buf[0]; + bool issrc, isneg; + u32 off_reg; + + aux = &env->insn_aux_data[i + delta]; + if (!aux->alu_state) + continue; + + isneg = aux->alu_state & BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE; + issrc = (aux->alu_state & BPF_ALU_SANITIZE) == + BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC; + + off_reg = issrc ? insn->src_reg : insn->dst_reg; + if (isneg) + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, off_reg, -1); + *patch++ = BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_AX, aux->alu_limit - 1); + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_AX, off_reg); + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_AX, off_reg); + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_AX, 0); + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_AX, 63); + if (issrc) { + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_AX, + off_reg); + insn->src_reg = BPF_REG_AX; + } else { + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, off_reg, + BPF_REG_AX); + } + if (isneg) + insn->code = insn->code == code_add ? + code_sub : code_add; + *patch++ = *insn; + if (issrc && isneg) + *patch++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, off_reg, -1); + cnt = patch - insn_buf; + + new_prog = bpf_patch_insn_data(env, i + delta, insn_buf, cnt); + if (!new_prog) + return -ENOMEM; + + delta += cnt - 1; + env->prog = prog = new_prog; + insn = new_prog->insnsi + i + delta; + continue; + } + if (insn->code != (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) continue; From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:08 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039621 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ525n54z9sMr; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:58 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46I-0003kn-N2; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:50 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt468-0003cM-DG for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:40 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt466-0004w8-4v; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:38 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 11/13] bpf: fix sanitation of alu op with pointer / scalar type from different paths Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:08 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-12-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann 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 CVE-2019-7308 (cherry picked from commit d3bd7413e0ca40b60cf60d4003246d067cafdeda) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 + kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h index d4a72f52dc46..2c77e4f647c8 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state_list { #define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC 1U #define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST 2U #define BPF_ALU_NEG_VALUE (1U << 2) +#define BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER (1U << 3) #define BPF_ALU_SANITIZE (BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_SRC | \ BPF_ALU_SANITIZE_DST) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index c97c663ffc67..f40f95b8f1cf 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2008,6 +2008,40 @@ static int retrieve_ptr_limit(const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, } } +static bool can_skip_alu_sanitation(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + const struct bpf_insn *insn) +{ + return env->allow_ptr_leaks || BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K; +} + +static int update_alu_sanitation_state(struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux, + u32 alu_state, u32 alu_limit) +{ + /* If we arrived here from different branches with different + * state or limits to sanitize, then this won't work. + */ + if (aux->alu_state && + (aux->alu_state != alu_state || + aux->alu_limit != alu_limit)) + return -EACCES; + + /* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */ + aux->alu_state = alu_state; + aux->alu_limit = alu_limit; + return 0; +} + +static int sanitize_val_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, + struct bpf_insn *insn) +{ + struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux = cur_aux(env); + + if (can_skip_alu_sanitation(env, insn)) + return 0; + + return update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, BPF_ALU_NON_POINTER, 0); +} + static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn, const struct bpf_reg_state *ptr_reg, @@ -2022,7 +2056,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state tmp; bool ret; - if (env->allow_ptr_leaks || BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_K) + if (can_skip_alu_sanitation(env, insn)) return 0; /* We already marked aux for masking from non-speculative @@ -2038,19 +2072,8 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (retrieve_ptr_limit(ptr_reg, &alu_limit, opcode, off_is_neg)) return 0; - - /* If we arrived here from different branches with different - * limits to sanitize, then this won't work. - */ - if (aux->alu_state && - (aux->alu_state != alu_state || - aux->alu_limit != alu_limit)) + if (update_alu_sanitation_state(aux, alu_state, alu_limit)) return -EACCES; - - /* Corresponding fixup done in fixup_bpf_calls(). */ - aux->alu_state = alu_state; - aux->alu_limit = alu_limit; - do_sim: /* Simulate and find potential out-of-bounds access under * speculative execution from truncation as a result of @@ -2319,6 +2342,8 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, s64 smin_val, smax_val; u64 umin_val, umax_val; u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32; + u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; + int ret; if (insn_bitness == 32) { /* Relevant for 32-bit RSH: Information can propagate towards @@ -2353,6 +2378,11 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, switch (opcode) { case BPF_ADD: + ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); + if (ret < 0) { + verbose(env, "R%d tried to add from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); + return ret; + } if (signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smin_val) || signed_add_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smax_val)) { dst_reg->smin_value = S64_MIN; @@ -2372,6 +2402,11 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, dst_reg->var_off = tnum_add(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off); break; case BPF_SUB: + ret = sanitize_val_alu(env, insn); + if (ret < 0) { + verbose(env, "R%d tried to sub from different pointers or scalars\n", dst); + return ret; + } if (signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smin_value, smax_val) || signed_sub_overflows(dst_reg->smax_value, smin_val)) { /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:09 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039622 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ550Y5Qz9sMp; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:26:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46M-0003oE-D8; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:54 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt469-0003dA-AI for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:41 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt467-0004w8-AR; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:39 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 12/13] bpf: fix inner map masking to prevent oob under speculation Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:09 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-13-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann During review I noticed that inner meta map setup for map in map is buggy in that it does not propagate all needed data from the reference map which the verifier is later accessing. In particular one such case is index masking to prevent out of bounds access under speculative execution due to missing the map's unpriv_array/index_mask field propagation. Fix this such that the verifier is generating the correct code for inlined lookups in case of unpriviledged use. Before patch (test_verifier's 'map in map access' dump): # bpftool prog dump xla id 3 0: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -4 3: (18) r1 = map[id:4] 5: (07) r1 += 272 | 6: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) | 7: (35) if r0 >= 0x1 goto pc+6 | Inlined map in map lookup 8: (54) (u32) r0 &= (u32) 0 | with index masking for 9: (67) r0 <<= 3 | map->unpriv_array. 10: (0f) r0 += r1 | 11: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) | 12: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 | 13: (05) goto pc+1 | 14: (b7) r0 = 0 | 15: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+11 16: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = 0 17: (bf) r2 = r10 18: (07) r2 += -4 19: (bf) r1 = r0 20: (07) r1 += 272 | 21: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) | Index masking missing (!) 22: (35) if r0 >= 0x1 goto pc+3 | for inner map despite 23: (67) r0 <<= 3 | map->unpriv_array set. 24: (0f) r0 += r1 | 25: (05) goto pc+1 | 26: (b7) r0 = 0 | 27: (b7) r0 = 0 28: (95) exit After patch: # bpftool prog dump xla id 1 0: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = 0 1: (bf) r2 = r10 2: (07) r2 += -4 3: (18) r1 = map[id:2] 5: (07) r1 += 272 | 6: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) | 7: (35) if r0 >= 0x1 goto pc+6 | Same inlined map in map lookup 8: (54) (u32) r0 &= (u32) 0 | with index masking due to 9: (67) r0 <<= 3 | map->unpriv_array. 10: (0f) r0 += r1 | 11: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r0 +0) | 12: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+1 | 13: (05) goto pc+1 | 14: (b7) r0 = 0 | 15: (15) if r0 == 0x0 goto pc+12 16: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = 0 17: (bf) r2 = r10 18: (07) r2 += -4 19: (bf) r1 = r0 20: (07) r1 += 272 | 21: (61) r0 = *(u32 *)(r2 +0) | 22: (35) if r0 >= 0x1 goto pc+4 | Now fixed inlined inner map 23: (54) (u32) r0 &= (u32) 0 | lookup with proper index masking 24: (67) r0 <<= 3 | for map->unpriv_array. 25: (0f) r0 += r1 | 26: (05) goto pc+1 | 27: (b7) r0 = 0 | 28: (b7) r0 = 0 29: (95) exit Fixes: b2157399cc98 ("bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation") Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2017-5753 (cherry picked from commit 9d5564ddcf2a0f5ba3fa1c3a1f8a1b59ad309553) Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c b/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c index 1da574612bea..c0c494b7647b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd) { struct bpf_map *inner_map, *inner_map_meta; + u32 inner_map_meta_size; struct fd f; f = fdget(inner_map_ufd); @@ -34,7 +35,12 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd) return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); } - inner_map_meta = kzalloc(sizeof(*inner_map_meta), GFP_USER); + inner_map_meta_size = sizeof(*inner_map_meta); + /* In some cases verifier needs to access beyond just base map. */ + if (inner_map->ops == &array_map_ops) + inner_map_meta_size = sizeof(struct bpf_array); + + inner_map_meta = kzalloc(inner_map_meta_size, GFP_USER); if (!inner_map_meta) { fdput(f); return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); @@ -44,9 +50,16 @@ struct bpf_map *bpf_map_meta_alloc(int inner_map_ufd) inner_map_meta->key_size = inner_map->key_size; inner_map_meta->value_size = inner_map->value_size; inner_map_meta->map_flags = inner_map->map_flags; - inner_map_meta->ops = inner_map->ops; inner_map_meta->max_entries = inner_map->max_entries; + /* Misc members not needed in bpf_map_meta_equal() check. */ + inner_map_meta->ops = inner_map->ops; + if (inner_map->ops == &array_map_ops) { + inner_map_meta->unpriv_array = inner_map->unpriv_array; + container_of(inner_map_meta, struct bpf_array, map)->index_mask = + container_of(inner_map, struct bpf_array, map)->index_mask; + } + fdput(f); return inner_map_meta; } From patchwork Mon Feb 11 05:25:10 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Tyler Hicks X-Patchwork-Id: 1039623 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yZ554mkdz9sMr; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:26:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46M-0003ox-Vv; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:54 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gt46A-0003eM-87 for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:42 +0000 Received: from 2.general.tyhicks.us.vpn ([10.172.64.53] helo=sec.ubuntu-ci) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1gt468-0004w8-GA; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:40 +0000 From: Tyler Hicks To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [PATCH 13/13] bpf: add various test cases to selftests Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:25:10 +0000 Message-Id: <1549862710-24224-14-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> References: <1549862710-24224-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com> X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Daniel Borkmann Add various map value pointer related test cases to test_verifier kselftest to reflect recent changes and improve test coverage. The tests include basic masking functionality, unprivileged behavior on pointer arithmetic which goes oob, mixed bounds tests, negative unknown scalar but resulting positive offset for access and helper range, handling of arithmetic from multiple maps, various masking scenarios with subsequent map value access and others including two test cases from Jann Horn for prior fixes. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov CVE-2019-7308 (backported from commit 80c9b2fae87bb5c5698940da1a981f14f89518d1) [tyhicks: Rename struct members due to missing commit 908142e61b2e] [tyhicks: Use the correct errstr for older kernels in the "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 14" test] [tyhicks: Use the correct unpriv_errstr for older kernels, where commit 4f7b3e82589e is missing, in the "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 14" test] [tyhicks: Don't add any tests that depend on fixup_map3 or fixup_map4 since they don't exist in Bionic] [tyhicks: Remove retval from all added tests since Bionic's test_verifier.c can't check the retval] Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 610 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 610 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 1fe54c18ec3f..c29dd9c30710 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ #include #include #include +#include +#include #include #include @@ -1858,6 +1860,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .result = REJECT, .errstr = "invalid stack off=-79992 size=8", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", }, { "PTR_TO_STACK store/load - out of bounds high", @@ -2239,6 +2242,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, -8), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, .result = ACCEPT, }, { @@ -2281,6 +2286,234 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = ACCEPT, }, { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 2", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, -1, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, -1, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 4", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .errstr = "invalid stack off=0 size=1", + .result = REJECT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 5", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, (1 << 29) - 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid stack off", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 6", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, (1 << 29) - 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MAX, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MAX), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid stack off", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check high 7", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, (1 << 29) - 1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, (1 << 29) - 1), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MAX, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MAX), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .errstr = "fp pointer offset", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -512), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 2", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -513), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 1, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -513), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .errstr = "invalid stack off=-513 size=1", + .result = REJECT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 4", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, INT_MIN), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "math between fp pointer", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 5", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -((1 << 29) - 1)), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid stack off", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 6", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -((1 << 29) - 1)), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MIN, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MIN), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid stack off", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK check low 7", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -((1 << 29) - 1)), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -((1 << 29) - 1)), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MIN, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, SHRT_MIN), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", + .errstr = "fp pointer offset", + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK mixed reg/k, 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK mixed reg/k, 2", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_5, -6), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK mixed reg/k, 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -3), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "PTR_TO_STACK reg", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_1, 0, 42), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .errstr_unpriv = "invalid stack off=0 size=1", + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { "stack pointer arithmetic", .insns = { BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), @@ -6402,6 +6635,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6426,6 +6660,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6452,6 +6687,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6477,6 +6713,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6525,6 +6762,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6596,6 +6834,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6647,6 +6886,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6674,6 +6914,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6700,6 +6941,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6729,6 +6971,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R7 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6759,6 +7002,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 4 }, .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'", .result = REJECT, }, { @@ -6787,6 +7031,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, .result_unpriv = REJECT, }, @@ -6839,9 +7084,39 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds", .result = REJECT, }, { + "check subtraction on pointers for unpriv", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_ARG1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG2, BPF_REG_FP), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_ARG2, -8), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_ARG2, 0, 9), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_FP), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_0), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_ARG1, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_ARG2, BPF_REG_FP), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_ARG2, -8), + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_ARG2, 0, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_9, 0), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map1 = { 1, 9 }, + .result = ACCEPT, + .result_unpriv = REJECT, + .errstr_unpriv = "R9 pointer -= pointer prohibited", + }, + { "bounds check based on zero-extended MOV", .insns = { BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), @@ -7172,6 +7447,36 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT }, { + "bounds check after 32-bit right shift with 64-bit input", + .insns = { + BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8), + BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, + BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6), + /* r1 = 2 */ + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 2), + /* r1 = 1<<32 */ + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_1, 31), + /* r1 = 0 (NOT 2!) */ + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 31), + /* r1 = 0xffff'fffe (NOT 0!) */ + BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 2), + /* computes OOB pointer */ + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + /* OOB access */ + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), + /* exit */ + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, + .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access", + .result = REJECT, + }, + { "bounds check map access with off+size signed 32bit overflow. test1", .insns = { BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0), @@ -7211,6 +7516,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "pointer offset 1073741822", + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range", .result = REJECT }, { @@ -7232,6 +7538,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { }, .fixup_map1 = { 3 }, .errstr = "pointer offset -1073741822", + .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range", .result = REJECT }, { @@ -7401,6 +7708,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { BPF_EXIT_INSN() }, .errstr = "fp pointer offset 1073741822", + .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range", .result = REJECT }, { @@ -8966,6 +9274,308 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .errstr = "variable ctx access var_off=(0x0; 0x4)", }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 5 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 2", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xffffffff), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 4", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xffffffff), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 5", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 6", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 7", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 5), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 5 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 8", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 9", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xffffffff), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 10", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xffffffff), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 11", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test out of bounds 12", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 1", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 4), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 5 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 2", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 3", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xfffffffe), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xffffffff - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 4", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0xabcde), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0xabcdef - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 5", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 6", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 46), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 47 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 7", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, -46), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 47 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, + { + "masking, test in bounds 8", + .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, -47), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MUL, BPF_REG_3, -1), + BPF_MOV32_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 47 - 1), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_OR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_2, 0), + BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ARSH, BPF_REG_2, 63), + BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .result = ACCEPT, + }, }; static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)