From: Luis Gerhorst <gerhorst@cs.fau.de> stable inclusion from stable-v4.19.272 commit aae109414a57ab4164218f36e2e4a17f027fcaaa category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/IBWVYS CVE: CVE-2023-53024 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit e4f4db47794c9f474b184ee1418f42e6a07412b6 ] To mitigate Spectre v4, 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation") inserts lfence instructions after 1) initializing a stack slot and 2) spilling a pointer to the stack. However, this does not cover cases where a stack slot is first initialized with a pointer (subject to sanitization) but then overwritten with a scalar (not subject to sanitization because the slot was already initialized). In this case, the second write may be subject to speculative store bypass (SSB) creating a speculative pointer-as-scalar type confusion. This allows the program to subsequently leak the numerical pointer value using, for example, a branch-based cache side channel. To fix this, also sanitize scalars if they write a stack slot that previously contained a pointer. Assuming that pointer-spills are only generated by LLVM on register-pressure, the performance impact on most real-world BPF programs should be small. The following unprivileged BPF bytecode drafts a minimal exploit and the mitigation: [...] // r6 = 0 or 1 (skalar, unknown user input) // r7 = accessible ptr for side channel // r10 = frame pointer (fp), to be leaked // r9 = r10 # fp alias to encourage ssb *(u64 *)(r9 - 8) = r10 // fp[-8] = ptr, to be leaked // lfence added here because of pointer spill to stack. // // Ommitted: Dummy bpf_ringbuf_output() here to train alias predictor // for no r9-r10 dependency. // *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r6 // fp[-8] = scalar, overwrites ptr // 2039f26f3aca: no lfence added because stack slot was not STACK_INVALID, // store may be subject to SSB // // fix: also add an lfence when the slot contained a ptr // r8 = *(u64 *)(r9 - 8) // r8 = architecturally a scalar, speculatively a ptr // // leak ptr using branch-based cache side channel: r8 &= 1 // choose bit to leak if r8 == 0 goto SLOW // no mispredict // architecturally dead code if input r6 is 0, // only executes speculatively iff ptr bit is 1 r8 = *(u64 *)(r7 + 0) # encode bit in cache (0: slow, 1: fast) SLOW: [...] After running this, the program can time the access to *(r7 + 0) to determine whether the chosen pointer bit was 0 or 1. Repeat this 64 times to recover the whole address on amd64. In summary, sanitization can only be skipped if one scalar is overwritten with another scalar. Scalar-confusion due to speculative store bypass can not lead to invalid accesses because the pointer bounds deducted during verification are enforced using branchless logic. See 979d63d50c0c ("bpf: prevent out of bounds speculation on pointer arithmetic") for details. Do not make the mitigation depend on !env->allow_{uninit_stack,ptr_leaks} because speculative leaks are likely unexpected if these were enabled. For example, leaking the address to a protected log file may be acceptable while disabling the mitigation might unintentionally leak the address into the cached-state of a map that is accessible to unprivileged processes. Fixes: 2039f26f3aca ("bpf: Fix leakage due to insufficient speculative store bypass mitigation") Signed-off-by: Luis Gerhorst <gerhorst@cs.fau.de> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Henriette Hofmeier <henriette.hofmeier@rub.de> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/edc95bad-aada-9cfc-ffe2-fa9bb206583c@cs.fau.de Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230109150544.41465-1-gerhorst@cs.fau.de Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index c3c592654cf1..e00cb52fb480 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1013,7 +1013,9 @@ static int check_stack_write(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, bool sanitize = reg && is_spillable_regtype(reg->type); for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { - if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] == STACK_INVALID) { + u8 type = state->stack[spi].slot_type[i]; + + if (type != STACK_MISC && type != STACK_ZERO) { sanitize = true; break; } -- 2.34.1