[PATCH openEuler-22.03-LTS-SP1 v3 00/13] Align 5.10 higher version bpf verifier
Andrii Nakryiko (4): bpf: propagate precision across all frames, not just the last one bpf: stop setting precise in current state bpf: fix check for attempt to corrupt spilled pointer bpf: fix precision propagation verbose logging Eduard Zingerman (2): bpf: Fix to preserve reg parent/live fields when copying range info bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction Hao Sun (1): bpf: Fix check_stack_write_fixed_off() to correctly spill imm Martin KaFai Lau (3): bpf: Check the other end of slot_type for STACK_SPILL bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill bpf: Do not reject when the stack read size is different from the tracked scalar size Maxim Mikityanskiy (1): bpf: Fix verifier id tracking of scalars on spill Paul Chaignon (1): bpf: Fix incorrect state pruning for <8B spill/fill Shung-Hsi Yu (1): bpf: Fix precision tracking for BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 334 +++++++++++++----- .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 110 +++--- 2 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) -- 2.34.1
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.163 commit cdd73a5ed0840da88a3b9ad353f568e6f156d417 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 27113c59b6d0a587b29ae72d4ff3f832f58b0651 ] Every 8 bytes of the stack is tracked by a bpf_stack_state. Within each bpf_stack_state, there is a 'u8 slot_type[8]' to track the type of each byte. Verifier tests slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL to decide if the spilled reg state is saved. Verifier currently only saves the reg state if the whole 8 bytes are spilled to the stack, so checking the slot_type[7] is the same as checking slot_type[0]. The later patch will allow verifier to save the bounded scalar reg also for <8 bytes spill. There is a llvm patch [1] to ensure the <8 bytes spill will be 8-byte aligned, so checking slot_type[7] instead of slot_type[0] is required. While at it, this patch refactors the slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL test into a new function is_spilled_reg() and change the slot_type[0] check to slot_type[7] check in there also. [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D109073 Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922004934.624194-1-kafai@fb.com Stable-dep-of: 529409ea92d5 ("bpf: propagate precision across all frames, not just the last one") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Conflicts: kernel/bpf/verifier.c Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index e1f8e3632880..3743934e73d7 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -566,6 +566,14 @@ const char *kernel_type_name(u32 id) btf_type_by_id(btf_vmlinux, id)->name_off); } +/* The reg state of a pointer or a bounded scalar was saved when + * it was spilled to the stack. + */ +static bool is_spilled_reg(const struct bpf_stack_state *stack) +{ + return stack->slot_type[BPF_REG_SIZE - 1] == STACK_SPILL; +} + static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_func_state *state) { @@ -668,7 +676,7 @@ static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, continue; verbose(env, " fp%d", (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE); print_liveness(env, state->stack[i].spilled_ptr.live); - if (state->stack[i].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL) { + if (is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[i])) { reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr; t = reg->type; verbose(env, "=%s", reg_type_str(env, t)); @@ -2073,7 +2081,7 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, reg->precise = true; } for (j = 0; j < func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; j++) { - if (func->stack[j].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) + if (!is_spilled_reg(&func->stack[j])) continue; reg = &func->stack[j].spilled_ptr; if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) @@ -2115,7 +2123,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, } while (spi >= 0) { - if (func->stack[spi].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) { + if (!is_spilled_reg(&func->stack[spi])) { stack_mask = 0; break; } @@ -2214,7 +2222,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, return 0; } - if (func->stack[i].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) { + if (!is_spilled_reg(&func->stack[i])) { stack_mask &= ~(1ull << i); continue; } @@ -2399,7 +2407,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* regular write of data into stack destroys any spilled ptr */ state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.type = NOT_INIT; /* Mark slots as STACK_MISC if they belonged to spilled ptr. */ - if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL) + if (is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[spi])) for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] = STACK_MISC; @@ -2604,7 +2612,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, stype = reg_state->stack[spi].slot_type; reg = ®_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr; - if (stype[0] == STACK_SPILL) { + if (is_spilled_reg(®_state->stack[spi])) { if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { verbose_linfo(env, env->insn_idx, "; "); @@ -4160,11 +4168,11 @@ static int check_stack_range_initialized( goto mark; } - if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL && + if (is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[spi]) && state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.type == PTR_TO_BTF_ID) goto mark; - if (state->stack[spi].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL && + if (is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[spi]) && (state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.type == SCALAR_VALUE || env->allow_ptr_leaks)) { if (clobber) { @@ -9404,9 +9412,9 @@ static bool stacksafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_state *old, * return false to continue verification of this path */ return false; - if (i % BPF_REG_SIZE) + if (i % BPF_REG_SIZE != BPF_REG_SIZE - 1) continue; - if (old->stack[spi].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) + if (!is_spilled_reg(&old->stack[spi])) continue; if (!regsafe(env, &old->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, &cur->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, idmap)) @@ -9613,7 +9621,7 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } for (i = 0; i < state->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { - if (state->stack[i].slot_type[0] != STACK_SPILL) + if (!is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[i])) continue; state_reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr; if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE || -- 2.34.1
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.163 commit e1989d808b86f1c690a060f75b928f3db81cd977 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 529409ea92d590659be487ba0839710329bd8074 ] When equivalent completed state is found and it has additional precision restrictions, BPF verifier propagates precision to currently-being-verified state chain (i.e., including parent states) so that if some of the states in the chain are not yet completed, necessary precision restrictions are enforced. Unfortunately, right now this happens only for the last frame (deepest active subprogram's frame), not all the frames. This can lead to incorrect matching of states due to missing precision marker. Currently this doesn't seem possible as BPF verifier forces everything to precise when validated BPF program has any subprograms. But with the next patch lifting this restriction, this becomes problematic. In fact, without this fix, we'll start getting failure in one of the existing test_verifier test cases: #906/p precise: cross frame pruning FAIL Unexpected success to load! verification time 48 usec stack depth 0+0 processed 26 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 3 total_states 17 peak_states 17 mark_read 8 This patch adds precision propagation across all frames. Fixes: a3ce685dd01a ("bpf: fix precision tracking") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221104163649.121784-3-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 3743934e73d7..51defd774657 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2091,7 +2091,7 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } } -static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, +static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno, int spi) { struct bpf_verifier_state *st = env->cur_state; @@ -2108,7 +2108,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, if (!env->bpf_capable) return 0; - func = st->frame[st->curframe]; + func = st->frame[frame]; if (regno >= 0) { reg = &func->regs[regno]; if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { @@ -2189,7 +2189,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, break; new_marks = false; - func = st->frame[st->curframe]; + func = st->frame[frame]; bitmap_from_u64(mask, reg_mask); for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 32) { reg = &func->regs[i]; @@ -2255,12 +2255,17 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno, static int mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno) { - return __mark_chain_precision(env, regno, -1); + return __mark_chain_precision(env, env->cur_state->curframe, regno, -1); } -static int mark_chain_precision_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int spi) +static int mark_chain_precision_frame(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno) { - return __mark_chain_precision(env, -1, spi); + return __mark_chain_precision(env, frame, regno, -1); +} + +static int mark_chain_precision_stack_frame(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int spi) +{ + return __mark_chain_precision(env, frame, -1, spi); } static bool is_spillable_regtype(enum bpf_reg_type type) @@ -9605,34 +9610,36 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, { struct bpf_reg_state *state_reg; struct bpf_func_state *state; - int i, err = 0; + int i, err = 0, fr; - state = old->frame[old->curframe]; - state_reg = state->regs; - for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++, state_reg++) { - if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE || - !state_reg->precise) - continue; - if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) - verbose(env, "propagating r%d\n", i); - err = mark_chain_precision(env, i); - if (err < 0) - return err; - } + for (fr = old->curframe; fr >= 0; fr--) { + state = old->frame[fr]; + state_reg = state->regs; + for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_FP; i++, state_reg++) { + if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE || + !state_reg->precise) + continue; + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) + verbose(env, "frame %d: propagating r%d\n", i, fr); + err = mark_chain_precision_frame(env, fr, i); + if (err < 0) + return err; + } - for (i = 0; i < state->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { - if (!is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[i])) - continue; - state_reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr; - if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE || - !state_reg->precise) - continue; - if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) - verbose(env, "propagating fp%d\n", - (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE); - err = mark_chain_precision_stack(env, i); - if (err < 0) - return err; + for (i = 0; i < state->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { + if (!is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[i])) + continue; + state_reg = &state->stack[i].spilled_ptr; + if (state_reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE || + !state_reg->precise) + continue; + if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) + verbose(env, "frame %d: propagating fp%d\n", + (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE, fr); + err = mark_chain_precision_stack_frame(env, fr, i); + if (err < 0) + return err; + } } return 0; } -- 2.34.1
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.168 commit 8de8c4a25ed8924b09cf8cd542feea854d5ee5bf category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 354e8f1970f821d4952458f77b1ab6c3eb24d530 ] The verifier currently does not save the reg state when spilling <8byte bounded scalar to the stack. The bpf program will be incorrectly rejected when this scalar is refilled to the reg and then used to offset into a packet header. The later patch has a simplified bpf prog from a real use case to demonstrate this case. The current work around is to reparse the packet again such that this offset scalar is close to where the packet data will be accessed to avoid the spill. Thus, the header is parsed twice. The llvm patch [1] will align the <8bytes spill to the 8-byte stack address. This can simplify the verifier support by avoiding to store multiple reg states for each 8 byte stack slot. This patch changes the verifier to save the reg state when spilling <8bytes scalar to the stack. This reg state saving is limited to spill aligned to the 8-byte stack address. The current refill logic has already called coerce_reg_to_size(), so coerce_reg_to_size() is not called on state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr during spill. When refilling in check_stack_read_fixed_off(), it checks the refill size is the same as the number of bytes marked with STACK_SPILL before restoring the reg state. When restoring the reg state to state->regs[dst_regno], it needs to avoid the state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def being over written because it has been marked by the check_reg_arg() earlier [check_mem_access() is called after check_reg_arg() in do_check()]. Reordering check_mem_access() and check_reg_arg() will need a lot of changes in test_verifier's tests because of the difference in verifier's error message. Thus, the patch here is to save the state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def first in check_stack_read_fixed_off(). There are cases that the verifier needs to scrub the spilled slot from STACK_SPILL to STACK_MISC. After this patch the spill is not always in 8 bytes now, so it can no longer assume the other 7 bytes are always marked as STACK_SPILL. In particular, the scrub needs to avoid marking an uninitialized byte from STACK_INVALID to STACK_MISC. Otherwise, the verifier will incorrectly accept bpf program reading uninitialized bytes from the stack. A new helper scrub_spilled_slot() is created for this purpose. [1]: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109073 Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210922004941.625398-1-kafai@fb.com Stable-dep-of: 71f656a50176 ("bpf: Fix to preserve reg parent/live fields when copying range info") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 51defd774657..68d55da60068 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -574,6 +574,12 @@ static bool is_spilled_reg(const struct bpf_stack_state *stack) return stack->slot_type[BPF_REG_SIZE - 1] == STACK_SPILL; } +static void scrub_spilled_slot(u8 *stype) +{ + if (*stype != STACK_INVALID) + *stype = STACK_MISC; +} + static void print_verifier_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, const struct bpf_func_state *state) { @@ -2328,15 +2334,21 @@ static bool __is_pointer_value(bool allow_ptr_leaks, } static void save_register_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, - int spi, struct bpf_reg_state *reg) + int spi, struct bpf_reg_state *reg, + int size) { int i; state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = *reg; - state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; + if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE) + state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; - for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) - state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] = STACK_SPILL; + for (i = BPF_REG_SIZE; i > BPF_REG_SIZE - size; i--) + state->stack[spi].slot_type[i - 1] = STACK_SPILL; + + /* size < 8 bytes spill */ + for (; i; i--) + scrub_spilled_slot(&state->stack[spi].slot_type[i - 1]); } /* check_stack_{read,write}_fixed_off functions track spill/fill of registers, @@ -2380,7 +2392,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].sanitize_stack_spill = true; } - if (reg && size == BPF_REG_SIZE && register_is_bounded(reg) && + if (reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && register_is_bounded(reg) && !register_is_null(reg) && env->bpf_capable) { if (dst_reg != BPF_REG_FP) { /* The backtracking logic can only recognize explicit @@ -2393,7 +2405,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (err) return err; } - save_register_state(state, spi, reg); + save_register_state(state, spi, reg, size); } else if (reg && is_spillable_regtype(reg->type)) { /* register containing pointer is being spilled into stack */ if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { @@ -2405,7 +2417,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, verbose(env, "cannot spill pointers to stack into stack frame of the caller\n"); return -EINVAL; } - save_register_state(state, spi, reg); + save_register_state(state, spi, reg, size); } else { u8 type = STACK_MISC; @@ -2414,7 +2426,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* Mark slots as STACK_MISC if they belonged to spilled ptr. */ if (is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[spi])) for (i = 0; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) - state->stack[spi].slot_type[i] = STACK_MISC; + scrub_spilled_slot(&state->stack[spi].slot_type[i]); /* only mark the slot as written if all 8 bytes were written * otherwise read propagation may incorrectly stop too soon @@ -2612,23 +2624,50 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_func_state *state = vstate->frame[vstate->curframe]; int i, slot = -off - 1, spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE; struct bpf_reg_state *reg; - u8 *stype; + u8 *stype, type; stype = reg_state->stack[spi].slot_type; reg = ®_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr; if (is_spilled_reg(®_state->stack[spi])) { if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { + u8 scalar_size = 0; + if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { verbose_linfo(env, env->insn_idx, "; "); verbose(env, "invalid size of register fill\n"); return -EACCES; } - if (dst_regno >= 0) { + + mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64); + if (dst_regno < 0) + return 0; + + for (i = BPF_REG_SIZE; i > 0 && stype[i - 1] == STACK_SPILL; i--) + scalar_size++; + + if (!(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && size == scalar_size) { + /* The earlier check_reg_arg() has decided the + * subreg_def for this insn. Save it first. + */ + s32 subreg_def = state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def; + + state->regs[dst_regno] = *reg; + state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def = subreg_def; + } else { + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { + type = stype[(slot - i) % BPF_REG_SIZE]; + if (type == STACK_SPILL) + continue; + if (type == STACK_MISC) + continue; + verbose(env, "invalid read from stack off %d+%d size %d\n", + off, i, size); + return -EACCES; + } mark_reg_unknown(env, state->regs, dst_regno); - state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; } - mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64); + state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; return 0; } for (i = 1; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { @@ -2659,8 +2698,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, } mark_reg_read(env, reg, reg->parent, REG_LIVE_READ64); } else { - u8 type; - for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { type = stype[(slot - i) % BPF_REG_SIZE]; if (type == STACK_MISC) @@ -4183,7 +4220,7 @@ static int check_stack_range_initialized( if (clobber) { __mark_reg_unknown(env, &state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr); for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_SIZE; j++) - state->stack[spi].slot_type[j] = STACK_MISC; + scrub_spilled_slot(&state->stack[spi].slot_type[j]); } goto mark; } -- 2.34.1
From: Paul Chaignon <paul@isovalent.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.168 commit 9ff2bebc2ceaa2f2ab795093aee1b0ce3fc4ab5f category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- commit 345e004d023343d38088fdfea39688aa11e06ccf upstream. Commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") introduced support in the verifier to track <8B spill/fills of scalars. The backtracking logic for the precision bit was however skipping spill/fills of less than 8B. That could cause state pruning to consider two states equivalent when they shouldn't be. As an example, consider the following bytecode snippet: 0: r7 = r1 1: call bpf_get_prandom_u32 2: r6 = 2 3: if r0 == 0 goto pc+1 4: r6 = 3 ... 8: [state pruning point] ... /* u32 spill/fill */ 10: *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) = r6 11: r8 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 8) 12: r0 = 0 13: if r8 == 3 goto pc+1 14: r0 = 1 15: exit The verifier first walks the path with R6=3. Given the support for <8B spill/fills, at instruction 13, it knows the condition is true and skips instruction 14. At that point, the backtracking logic kicks in but stops at the fill instruction since it only propagates the precision bit for 8B spill/fill. When the verifier then walks the path with R6=2, it will consider it safe at instruction 8 because R6 is not marked as needing precision. Instruction 14 is thus never walked and is then incorrectly removed as 'dead code'. It's also possible to lead the verifier to accept e.g. an out-of-bound memory access instead of causing an incorrect dead code elimination. This regression was found via Cilium's bpf-next CI where it was causing a conntrack map update to be silently skipped because the code had been removed by the verifier. This commit fixes it by enabling support for <8B spill/fills in the bactracking logic. In case of a <8B spill/fill, the full 8B stack slot will be marked as needing precision. Then, in __mark_chain_precision, any tracked register spilled in a marked slot will itself be marked as needing precision, regardless of the spill size. This logic makes two assumptions: (1) only 8B-aligned spill/fill are tracked and (2) spilled registers are only tracked if the spill and fill sizes are equal. Commit ef979017b837 ("bpf: selftest: Add verifier tests for <8-byte scalar spill and refill") covers the first assumption and the next commit in this patchset covers the second. Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul@isovalent.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 68d55da60068..e527206bbc9d 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1931,8 +1931,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, */ if (insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_FP) return 0; - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) - return 0; /* dreg = *(u64 *)[fp - off] was a fill from the stack. * that [fp - off] slot contains scalar that needs to be @@ -1955,8 +1953,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, /* scalars can only be spilled into stack */ if (insn->dst_reg != BPF_REG_FP) return 0; - if (BPF_SIZE(insn->code) != BPF_DW) - return 0; spi = (-insn->off - 1) / BPF_REG_SIZE; if (spi >= 64) { verbose(env, "BUG spi %d\n", spi); -- 2.34.1
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.168 commit 36dbb8daf08a131a31a4940c314a1c585cba28ee category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 71f656a50176915d6813751188b5758daa8d012b ] Register range information is copied in several places. The intent is to transfer range/id information from one register/stack spill to another. Currently this is done using direct register assignment, e.g.: static void find_equal_scalars(..., struct bpf_reg_state *known_reg) { ... struct bpf_reg_state *reg; ... *reg = *known_reg; ... } However, such assignments also copy the following bpf_reg_state fields: struct bpf_reg_state { ... struct bpf_reg_state *parent; ... enum bpf_reg_liveness live; ... }; Copying of these fields is accidental and incorrect, as could be demonstrated by the following example: 0: call ktime_get_ns() 1: r6 = r0 2: call ktime_get_ns() 3: r7 = r0 4: if r0 > r6 goto +1 ; r0 & r6 are unbound thus generated ; branch states are identical 5: *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0xdeadbeef ; 64-bit write to fp[-8] --- checkpoint --- 6: r1 = 42 ; r1 marked as written 7: *(u8 *)(r10 - 8) = r1 ; 8-bit write, fp[-8] parent & live ; overwritten 8: r2 = *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) 9: r0 = 0 10: exit This example is unsafe because 64-bit write to fp[-8] at (5) is conditional, thus not all bytes of fp[-8] are guaranteed to be set when it is read at (8). However, currently the example passes verification. First, the execution path 1-10 is examined by verifier. Suppose that a new checkpoint is created by is_state_visited() at (6). After checkpoint creation: - r1.parent points to checkpoint.r1, - fp[-8].parent points to checkpoint.fp[-8]. At (6) the r1.live is set to REG_LIVE_WRITTEN. At (7) the fp[-8].parent is set to r1.parent and fp[-8].live is set to REG_LIVE_WRITTEN, because of the following code called in check_stack_write_fixed_off(): static void save_register_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int spi, struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size) { ... state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = *reg; // <--- parent & live copied if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE) state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; ... } Note the intent to mark stack spill as written only if 8 bytes are spilled to a slot, however this intent is spoiled by a 'live' field copy. At (8) the checkpoint.fp[-8] should be marked as REG_LIVE_READ but this does not happen: - fp[-8] in a current state is already marked as REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; - fp[-8].parent points to checkpoint.r1, parentage chain is used by mark_reg_read() to mark checkpoint states. At (10) the verification is finished for path 1-10 and jump 4-6 is examined. The checkpoint.fp[-8] never gets REG_LIVE_READ mark and this spill is pruned from the cached states by clean_live_states(). Hence verifier state obtained via path 1-4,6 is deemed identical to one obtained via path 1-6 and program marked as safe. Note: the example should be executed with BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ flag set to force creation of intermediate verifier states. This commit revisits the locations where bpf_reg_state instances are copied and replaces the direct copies with a call to a function copy_register_state(dst, src) that preserves 'parent' and 'live' fields of the 'dst'. Fixes: 679c782de14b ("bpf/verifier: per-register parent pointers") Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230106142214.1040390-2-eddyz87@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index e527206bbc9d..64478ec2f285 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2329,13 +2329,24 @@ static bool __is_pointer_value(bool allow_ptr_leaks, return reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE; } +/* Copy src state preserving dst->parent and dst->live fields */ +static void copy_register_state(struct bpf_reg_state *dst, const struct bpf_reg_state *src) +{ + struct bpf_reg_state *parent = dst->parent; + enum bpf_reg_liveness live = dst->live; + + *dst = *src; + dst->parent = parent; + dst->live = live; +} + static void save_register_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int spi, struct bpf_reg_state *reg, int size) { int i; - state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr = *reg; + copy_register_state(&state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr, reg); if (size == BPF_REG_SIZE) state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; @@ -2648,7 +2659,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, */ s32 subreg_def = state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def; - state->regs[dst_regno] = *reg; + copy_register_state(&state->regs[dst_regno], reg); state->regs[dst_regno].subreg_def = subreg_def; } else { for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { @@ -2675,7 +2686,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (dst_regno >= 0) { /* restore register state from stack */ - state->regs[dst_regno] = *reg; + copy_register_state(&state->regs[dst_regno], reg); /* mark reg as written since spilled pointer state likely * has its liveness marks cleared by is_state_visited() * which resets stack/reg liveness for state transitions @@ -6012,7 +6023,7 @@ static int sanitize_ptr_alu(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, */ if (!ptr_is_dst_reg) { tmp = *dst_reg; - *dst_reg = *ptr_reg; + copy_register_state(dst_reg, ptr_reg); } ret = sanitize_speculative_path(env, NULL, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx); @@ -7267,7 +7278,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) * to propagate min/max range. */ src_reg->id = ++env->id_gen; - *dst_reg = *src_reg; + copy_register_state(dst_reg, src_reg); dst_reg->live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; dst_reg->subreg_def = DEF_NOT_SUBREG; } else { @@ -7278,7 +7289,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn) insn->src_reg); return -EACCES; } else if (src_reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE) { - *dst_reg = *src_reg; + copy_register_state(dst_reg, src_reg); /* Make sure ID is cleared otherwise * dst_reg min/max could be incorrectly * propagated into src_reg by find_equal_scalars() @@ -8080,7 +8091,7 @@ static void find_equal_scalars(struct bpf_verifier_state *vstate, if (!reg) continue; if (reg->type == SCALAR_VALUE && reg->id == known_reg->id) - *reg = *known_reg; + copy_register_state(reg, known_reg); } } } -- 2.34.1
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.168 commit e4c3ea9b6045912d87de83f616c50a0a0fc74b86 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit f30d4968e9aee737e174fc97942af46cfb49b484 ] Below is a simplified case from a report in bcc [0]: r4 = 20 *(u32 *)(r10 -4) = r4 *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = r4 /* r4 state is tracked */ r4 = *(u64 *)(r10 -8) /* Read more than the tracked 32bit scalar. * verifier rejects as 'corrupted spill memory'. */ After commit 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill"), the 8-byte aligned 32bit spill is also tracked by the verifier and the register state is stored. However, if 8 bytes are read from the stack instead of the tracked 4 byte scalar, then verifier currently rejects the program as "corrupted spill memory". This patch fixes this case by allowing it to read but marks the register as unknown. Also note that, if the prog is trying to corrupt/leak an earlier spilled pointer by spilling another <8 bytes register on top, this has already been rejected in the check_stack_write_fixed_off(). [0] https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/3683 Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") Reported-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Reported-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Tested-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211102064535.316018-1-kafai@fb.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ++++++------------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 64478ec2f285..0bb05f9eae83 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2637,9 +2637,12 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, reg = ®_state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr; if (is_spilled_reg(®_state->stack[spi])) { - if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { - u8 scalar_size = 0; + u8 spill_size = 1; + + for (i = BPF_REG_SIZE - 1; i > 0 && stype[i - 1] == STACK_SPILL; i--) + spill_size++; + if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE || spill_size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { verbose_linfo(env, env->insn_idx, "; "); verbose(env, "invalid size of register fill\n"); @@ -2650,10 +2653,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, if (dst_regno < 0) return 0; - for (i = BPF_REG_SIZE; i > 0 && stype[i - 1] == STACK_SPILL; i--) - scalar_size++; - - if (!(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && size == scalar_size) { + if (!(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && size == spill_size) { /* The earlier check_reg_arg() has decided the * subreg_def for this insn. Save it first. */ @@ -2677,12 +2677,6 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, state->regs[dst_regno].live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; return 0; } - for (i = 1; i < BPF_REG_SIZE; i++) { - if (stype[(slot - i) % BPF_REG_SIZE] != STACK_SPILL) { - verbose(env, "corrupted spill memory\n"); - return -EACCES; - } - } if (dst_regno >= 0) { /* restore register state from stack */ -- 2.34.1
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.186 commit 3b0a96db670b6d019d13fb052a40f3078264f224 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit ecdf985d7615356b78241fdb159c091830ed0380 ] For aligned stack writes using BPF_ST instruction track stored values in a same way BPF_STX is handled, e.g. make sure that the following commands produce similar verifier knowledge: fp[-8] = 42; r1 = 42; fp[-8] = r1; This covers two cases: - non-null values written to stack are stored as spill of fake registers; - null values written to stack are stored as STACK_ZERO marks. Previously both cases above used STACK_MISC marks instead. Some verifier test cases relied on the old logic to obtain STACK_MISC marks for some stack values. These test cases are updated in the same commit to avoid failures during bisect. Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230214232030.1502829-2-eddyz87@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Stable-dep-of: 713274f1f2c8 ("bpf: Fix verifier id tracking of scalars on spill") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 ++- .../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 110 ++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 0bb05f9eae83..fe4918f5c8bd 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2358,6 +2358,11 @@ static void save_register_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, scrub_spilled_slot(&state->stack[spi].slot_type[i - 1]); } +static bool is_bpf_st_mem(struct bpf_insn *insn) +{ + return BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ST && BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_MEM; +} + /* check_stack_{read,write}_fixed_off functions track spill/fill of registers, * stack boundary and alignment are checked in check_mem_access() */ @@ -2369,8 +2374,9 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, { struct bpf_func_state *cur; /* state of the current function */ int i, slot = -off - 1, spi = slot / BPF_REG_SIZE, err; - u32 dst_reg = env->prog->insnsi[insn_idx].dst_reg; + struct bpf_insn *insn = &env->prog->insnsi[insn_idx]; struct bpf_reg_state *reg = NULL; + u32 dst_reg = insn->dst_reg; /* caller checked that off % size == 0 and -MAX_BPF_STACK <= off < 0, * so it's aligned access and [off, off + size) are within stack limits @@ -2413,6 +2419,13 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return err; } save_register_state(state, spi, reg, size); + } else if (!reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) && + insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) { + struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {}; + + __mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, (u32)insn->imm); + fake_reg.type = SCALAR_VALUE; + save_register_state(state, spi, &fake_reg, size); } else if (reg && is_spillable_regtype(reg->type)) { /* register containing pointer is being spilled into stack */ if (size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { @@ -2447,7 +2460,8 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.live |= REG_LIVE_WRITTEN; /* when we zero initialize stack slots mark them as such */ - if (reg && register_is_null(reg)) { + if ((reg && register_is_null(reg)) || + (!reg && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) && insn->imm == 0)) { /* backtracking doesn't work for STACK_ZERO yet. */ err = mark_chain_precision(env, value_regno); if (err) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c index c2aa6f26738b..bf82b923c5fe 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c @@ -1,13 +1,14 @@ { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, positive bounds", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 7), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 2), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 3), @@ -17,20 +18,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 7), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 3), @@ -40,20 +42,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 2", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 5), @@ -65,20 +68,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 3", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 8), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 7), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 4), @@ -89,20 +93,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 4", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 7), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1), BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2), @@ -112,19 +117,20 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 5", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 5), @@ -135,17 +141,20 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 6", .insns = { + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_1), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), + BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_9), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_10), BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_3, -512), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_6, 5), @@ -163,13 +172,14 @@ { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 7", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 7), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 6), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1024 * 1024 * 1024), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 3), @@ -179,19 +189,20 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 8", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -203,20 +214,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 9", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 10), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 9), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2, -9223372036854775808ULL), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -228,19 +240,20 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .result = ACCEPT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 10", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 0), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -252,20 +265,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 11", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -278,20 +292,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 12", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 9), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 8), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -303,20 +318,21 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 13", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 5), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 2), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -331,7 +347,7 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, @@ -340,13 +356,14 @@ .insns = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 8), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 7), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -1), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_8, 2), @@ -360,20 +377,21 @@ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -3), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, -7), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 6 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, { "bounds checks mixing signed and unsigned, variant 15", .insns = { + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_ktime_get_ns), + BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16), 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, 4), - BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -16, -8), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 3), BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, -6), BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 2), @@ -387,7 +405,7 @@ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, - .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, + .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 }, .errstr = "unbounded min value", .result = REJECT, }, -- 2.34.1
From: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxim@isovalent.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.186 commit 562800447f8beef8ebc5a8640c61411620911ad1 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 713274f1f2c896d37017efee333fd44149710119 ] The following scenario describes a bug in the verifier where it incorrectly concludes about equivalent scalar IDs which could lead to verifier bypass in privileged mode: 1. Prepare a 32-bit rogue number. 2. Put the rogue number into the upper half of a 64-bit register, and roll a random (unknown to the verifier) bit in the lower half. The rest of the bits should be zero (although variations are possible). 3. Assign an ID to the register by MOVing it to another arbitrary register. 4. Perform a 32-bit spill of the register, then perform a 32-bit fill to another register. Due to a bug in the verifier, the ID will be preserved, although the new register will contain only the lower 32 bits, i.e. all zeros except one random bit. At this point there are two registers with different values but the same ID, which means the integrity of the verifier state has been corrupted. 5. Compare the new 32-bit register with 0. In the branch where it's equal to 0, the verifier will believe that the original 64-bit register is also 0, because it has the same ID, but its actual value still contains the rogue number in the upper half. Some optimizations of the verifier prevent the actual bypass, so extra care is needed: the comparison must be between two registers, and both branches must be reachable (this is why one random bit is needed). Both branches are still suitable for the bypass. 6. Right shift the original register by 32 bits to pop the rogue number. 7. Use the rogue number as an offset with any pointer. The verifier will believe that the offset is 0, while in reality it's the given number. The fix is similar to the 32-bit BPF_MOV handling in check_alu_op for SCALAR_VALUE. If the spill is narrowing the actual register value, don't keep the ID, make sure it's reset to 0. Fixes: 354e8f1970f8 ("bpf: Support <8-byte scalar spill and refill") Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxim@isovalent.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Tested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> # Checked veristat delta Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230607123951.558971-2-maxtram95@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index fe4918f5c8bd..8d5b9268640d 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2419,6 +2419,9 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, return err; } save_register_state(state, spi, reg, size); + /* Break the relation on a narrowing spill. */ + if (fls64(reg->umax_value) > BITS_PER_BYTE * size) + state->stack[spi].spilled_ptr.id = 0; } else if (!reg && !(off % BPF_REG_SIZE) && is_bpf_st_mem(insn) && insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) { struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {}; -- 2.34.1
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.2-rc1 commit f63181b6ae79fd3b034cde641db774268c2c3acf category: feature bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i... -------------------------------- Setting reg->precise to true in current state is not necessary from correctness standpoint, but it does pessimise the whole precision (or rather "imprecision", because that's what we want to keep as much as possible) tracking. Why is somewhat subtle and my best attempt to explain this is recorded in an extensive comment for __mark_chain_precise() function. Some more careful thinking and code reading is probably required still to grok this completely, unfortunately. Whiteboarding and a bunch of extra handwaiving in person would be even more helpful, but is deemed impractical in Git commit. Next patch pushes this imprecision property even further, building on top of the insights described in this patch. End results are pretty nice, we get reduction in number of total instructions and states verified due to a better states reuse, as some of the states are now more generic and permissive due to less unnecessary precise=true requirements. SELFTESTS RESULTS ================= $ ./veristat -C -e file,prog,insns,states ~/subprog-precise-results.csv ~/imprecise-early-results.csv | grep -v '+0' File Program Total insns (A) Total insns (B) Total insns (DIFF) Total states (A) Total states (B) Total states (DIFF) --------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------- bpf_iter_ksym.bpf.linked1.o dump_ksym 347 285 -62 (-17.87%) 20 19 -1 (-5.00%) pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked1.o on_event 3678 3736 +58 (+1.58%) 276 285 +9 (+3.26%) setget_sockopt.bpf.linked1.o skops_sockopt 4038 3947 -91 (-2.25%) 347 343 -4 (-1.15%) test_l4lb.bpf.linked1.o balancer_ingress 4559 2611 -1948 (-42.73%) 118 105 -13 (-11.02%) test_l4lb_noinline.bpf.linked1.o balancer_ingress 6279 6268 -11 (-0.18%) 237 236 -1 (-0.42%) test_misc_tcp_hdr_options.bpf.linked1.o misc_estab 1307 1303 -4 (-0.31%) 100 99 -1 (-1.00%) test_sk_lookup.bpf.linked1.o ctx_narrow_access 456 447 -9 (-1.97%) 39 38 -1 (-2.56%) test_sysctl_loop1.bpf.linked1.o sysctl_tcp_mem 1389 1384 -5 (-0.36%) 26 25 -1 (-3.85%) test_tc_dtime.bpf.linked1.o egress_fwdns_prio101 518 485 -33 (-6.37%) 51 46 -5 (-9.80%) test_tc_dtime.bpf.linked1.o egress_host 519 468 -51 (-9.83%) 50 44 -6 (-12.00%) test_tc_dtime.bpf.linked1.o ingress_fwdns_prio101 842 1000 +158 (+18.76%) 73 88 +15 (+20.55%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked1.o syncookie_tc 405757 373173 -32584 (-8.03%) 25735 22882 -2853 (-11.09%) xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked1.o syncookie_xdp 479055 371590 -107465 (-22.43%) 29145 22207 -6938 (-23.81%) --------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------- Slight regression in test_tc_dtime.bpf.linked1.o/ingress_fwdns_prio101 is left for a follow up, there might be some more precision-related bugs in existing BPF verifier logic. CILIUM RESULTS ============== $ ./veristat -C -e file,prog,insns,states ~/subprog-precise-results-cilium.csv ~/imprecise-early-results-cilium.csv | grep -v '+0' File Program Total insns (A) Total insns (B) Total insns (DIFF) Total states (A) Total states (B) Total states (DIFF) ------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------- bpf_host.o cil_from_host 762 556 -206 (-27.03%) 43 37 -6 (-13.95%) bpf_host.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 23541 23426 -115 (-0.49%) 1538 1537 -1 (-0.07%) bpf_host.o tail_nodeport_nat_egress_ipv4 33592 33566 -26 (-0.08%) 2163 2161 -2 (-0.09%) bpf_lxc.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 23541 23426 -115 (-0.49%) 1538 1537 -1 (-0.07%) bpf_overlay.o tail_nodeport_nat_egress_ipv4 33581 33543 -38 (-0.11%) 2160 2157 -3 (-0.14%) bpf_xdp.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv4 21659 20920 -739 (-3.41%) 1440 1376 -64 (-4.44%) bpf_xdp.o tail_handle_nat_fwd_ipv6 17084 17039 -45 (-0.26%) 907 905 -2 (-0.22%) bpf_xdp.o tail_lb_ipv4 73442 73430 -12 (-0.02%) 4370 4369 -1 (-0.02%) bpf_xdp.o tail_lb_ipv6 152114 151895 -219 (-0.14%) 6493 6479 -14 (-0.22%) bpf_xdp.o tail_nodeport_nat_egress_ipv4 17377 17200 -177 (-1.02%) 1125 1111 -14 (-1.24%) bpf_xdp.o tail_nodeport_nat_ingress_ipv6 6405 6397 -8 (-0.12%) 309 308 -1 (-0.32%) bpf_xdp.o tail_rev_nodeport_lb4 7126 6934 -192 (-2.69%) 414 402 -12 (-2.90%) bpf_xdp.o tail_rev_nodeport_lb6 18059 17905 -154 (-0.85%) 1105 1096 -9 (-0.81%) ------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------- Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221104163649.121784-5-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 8d5b9268640d..072583691a84 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2072,8 +2072,11 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, /* big hammer: mark all scalars precise in this path. * pop_stack may still get !precise scalars. + * We also skip current state and go straight to first parent state, + * because precision markings in current non-checkpointed state are + * not needed. See why in the comment in __mark_chain_precision below. */ - for (; st; st = st->parent) + for (st = st->parent; st; st = st->parent) { for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) { func = st->frame[i]; for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) { @@ -2091,8 +2094,88 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, reg->precise = true; } } + } } +/* + * __mark_chain_precision() backtracks BPF program instruction sequence and + * chain of verifier states making sure that register *regno* (if regno >= 0) + * and/or stack slot *spi* (if spi >= 0) are marked as precisely tracked + * SCALARS, as well as any other registers and slots that contribute to + * a tracked state of given registers/stack slots, depending on specific BPF + * assembly instructions (see backtrack_insns() for exact instruction handling + * logic). This backtracking relies on recorded jmp_history and is able to + * traverse entire chain of parent states. This process ends only when all the + * necessary registers/slots and their transitive dependencies are marked as + * precise. + * + * One important and subtle aspect is that precise marks *do not matter* in + * the currently verified state (current state). It is important to understand + * why this is the case. + * + * First, note that current state is the state that is not yet "checkpointed", + * i.e., it is not yet put into env->explored_states, and it has no children + * states as well. It's ephemeral, and can end up either a) being discarded if + * compatible explored state is found at some point or BPF_EXIT instruction is + * reached or b) checkpointed and put into env->explored_states, branching out + * into one or more children states. + * + * In the former case, precise markings in current state are completely + * ignored by state comparison code (see regsafe() for details). Only + * checkpointed ("old") state precise markings are important, and if old + * state's register/slot is precise, regsafe() assumes current state's + * register/slot as precise and checks value ranges exactly and precisely. If + * states turn out to be compatible, current state's necessary precise + * markings and any required parent states' precise markings are enforced + * after the fact with propagate_precision() logic, after the fact. But it's + * important to realize that in this case, even after marking current state + * registers/slots as precise, we immediately discard current state. So what + * actually matters is any of the precise markings propagated into current + * state's parent states, which are always checkpointed (due to b) case above). + * As such, for scenario a) it doesn't matter if current state has precise + * markings set or not. + * + * Now, for the scenario b), checkpointing and forking into child(ren) + * state(s). Note that before current state gets to checkpointing step, any + * processed instruction always assumes precise SCALAR register/slot + * knowledge: if precise value or range is useful to prune jump branch, BPF + * verifier takes this opportunity enthusiastically. Similarly, when + * register's value is used to calculate offset or memory address, exact + * knowledge of SCALAR range is assumed, checked, and enforced. So, similar to + * what we mentioned above about state comparison ignoring precise markings + * during state comparison, BPF verifier ignores and also assumes precise + * markings *at will* during instruction verification process. But as verifier + * assumes precision, it also propagates any precision dependencies across + * parent states, which are not yet finalized, so can be further restricted + * based on new knowledge gained from restrictions enforced by their children + * states. This is so that once those parent states are finalized, i.e., when + * they have no more active children state, state comparison logic in + * is_state_visited() would enforce strict and precise SCALAR ranges, if + * required for correctness. + * + * To build a bit more intuition, note also that once a state is checkpointed, + * the path we took to get to that state is not important. This is crucial + * property for state pruning. When state is checkpointed and finalized at + * some instruction index, it can be correctly and safely used to "short + * circuit" any *compatible* state that reaches exactly the same instruction + * index. I.e., if we jumped to that instruction from a completely different + * code path than original finalized state was derived from, it doesn't + * matter, current state can be discarded because from that instruction + * forward having a compatible state will ensure we will safely reach the + * exit. States describe preconditions for further exploration, but completely + * forget the history of how we got here. + * + * This also means that even if we needed precise SCALAR range to get to + * finalized state, but from that point forward *that same* SCALAR register is + * never used in a precise context (i.e., it's precise value is not needed for + * correctness), it's correct and safe to mark such register as "imprecise" + * (i.e., precise marking set to false). This is what we rely on when we do + * not set precise marking in current state. If no child state requires + * precision for any given SCALAR register, it's safe to dictate that it can + * be imprecise. If any child state does require this register to be precise, + * we'll mark it precise later retroactively during precise markings + * propagation from child state to parent states. + */ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno, int spi) { @@ -2110,6 +2193,10 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int r if (!env->bpf_capable) return 0; + /* Do sanity checks against current state of register and/or stack + * slot, but don't set precise flag in current state, as precision + * tracking in the current state is unnecessary. + */ func = st->frame[frame]; if (regno >= 0) { reg = &func->regs[regno]; @@ -2117,11 +2204,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int r WARN_ONCE(1, "backtracing misuse"); return -EFAULT; } - if (!reg->precise) - new_marks = true; - else - reg_mask = 0; - reg->precise = true; + new_marks = true; } while (spi >= 0) { @@ -2134,11 +2217,7 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int r stack_mask = 0; break; } - if (!reg->precise) - new_marks = true; - else - stack_mask = 0; - reg->precise = true; + new_marks = true; break; } @@ -9339,7 +9418,7 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state *rold, if (env->explore_alu_limits) return false; if (rcur->type == SCALAR_VALUE) { - if (!rold->precise && !rcur->precise) + if (!rold->precise) return true; /* new val must satisfy old val knowledge */ return range_within(rold, rcur) && -- 2.34.1
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.209 commit 2757f17972d87773b3677777f5682510f13c66ef category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit ab125ed3ec1c10ccc36bc98c7a4256ad114a3dae ] When register is spilled onto a stack as a 1/2/4-byte register, we set slot_type[BPF_REG_SIZE - 1] (plus potentially few more below it, depending on actual spill size). So to check if some stack slot has spilled register we need to consult slot_type[7], not slot_type[0]. To avoid the need to remember and double-check this in the future, just use is_spilled_reg() helper. Fixes: 27113c59b6d0 ("bpf: Check the other end of slot_type for STACK_SPILL") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205184248.1502704-4-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- 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 072583691a84..e7987b5bf237 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2461,7 +2461,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, * so it's aligned access and [off, off + size) are within stack limits */ if (!env->allow_ptr_leaks && - state->stack[spi].slot_type[0] == STACK_SPILL && + is_spilled_reg(&state->stack[spi]) && size != BPF_REG_SIZE) { verbose(env, "attempt to corrupt spilled pointer on stack\n"); return -EACCES; -- 2.34.1
From: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.202 commit 9617a9fe4f41e0efddbd8ed10cf5269cceaa34eb category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- commit 811c363645b33e6e22658634329e95f383dfc705 upstream. In check_stack_write_fixed_off(), imm value is cast to u32 before being spilled to the stack. Therefore, the sign information is lost, and the range information is incorrect when load from the stack again. For the following prog: 0: r2 = r10 1: *(u64*)(r2 -40) = -44 2: r0 = *(u64*)(r2 - 40) 3: if r0 s<= 0xa goto +2 4: r0 = 1 5: exit 6: r0 = 0 7: exit The verifier gives: func#0 @0 0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0 0: (bf) r2 = r10 ; R2_w=fp0 R10=fp0 1: (7a) *(u64 *)(r2 -40) = -44 ; R2_w=fp0 fp-40_w=4294967252 2: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 -40) ; R0_w=4294967252 R2_w=fp0 fp-40_w=4294967252 3: (c5) if r0 s< 0xa goto pc+2 mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 3 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1 mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 2: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r2 -40) 3: R0_w=4294967252 4: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=1 5: (95) exit verification time 7971 usec stack depth 40 processed 6 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0 So remove the incorrect cast, since imm field is declared as s32, and __mark_reg_known() takes u64, so imm would be correctly sign extended by compiler. Fixes: ecdf985d7615 ("bpf: track immediate values written to stack by BPF_ST instruction") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231101-fix-check-stack-write-v3-1-f05c2b1473d5@g... Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- 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 e7987b5bf237..1a82d720ab5e 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -2505,7 +2505,7 @@ static int check_stack_write_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, insn->imm != 0 && env->bpf_capable) { struct bpf_reg_state fake_reg = {}; - __mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, (u32)insn->imm); + __mark_reg_known(&fake_reg, insn->imm); fake_reg.type = SCALAR_VALUE; save_register_state(state, spi, &fake_reg, size); } else if (reg && is_spillable_regtype(reg->type)) { -- 2.34.1
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.180 commit 10702be8b3732b31ce4d584a23fefbf1a6f8a0f7 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- [ Upstream commit 34f0677e7afd3a292bc1aadda7ce8e35faedb204 ] Fix wrong order of frame index vs register/slot index in precision propagation verbose (level 2) output. It's wrong and very confusing as is. Fixes: 529409ea92d5 ("bpf: propagate precision across all frames, not just the last one") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230313184017.4083374-1-andrii@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 1a82d720ab5e..7473544d7e04 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -9754,7 +9754,7 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, !state_reg->precise) continue; if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) - verbose(env, "frame %d: propagating r%d\n", i, fr); + verbose(env, "frame %d: propagating r%d\n", fr, i); err = mark_chain_precision_frame(env, fr, i); if (err < 0) return err; @@ -9769,7 +9769,7 @@ static int propagate_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, continue; if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL2) verbose(env, "frame %d: propagating fp%d\n", - (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE, fr); + fr, (-i - 1) * BPF_REG_SIZE); err = mark_chain_precision_stack_frame(env, fr, i); if (err < 0) return err; -- 2.34.1
From: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.202 commit 5fb8ec5943b179e7486badf96a92c17fef16941b category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB4BCM Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=... -------------------------------- commit 291d044fd51f8484066300ee42afecf8c8db7b3a upstream. BPF_END and BPF_NEG has a different specification for the source bit in the opcode compared to other ALU/ALU64 instructions, and is either reserved or use to specify the byte swap endianness. In both cases the source bit does not encode source operand location, and src_reg is a reserved field. backtrack_insn() currently does not differentiate BPF_END and BPF_NEG from other ALU/ALU64 instructions, which leads to r0 being incorrectly marked as precise when processing BPF_ALU | BPF_TO_BE | BPF_END instructions. This commit teaches backtrack_insn() to correctly mark precision for such case. While precise tracking of BPF_NEG and other BPF_END instructions are correct and does not need fixing, this commit opt to process all BPF_NEG and BPF_END instructions within the same if-clause to better align with current convention used in the verifier (e.g. check_alu_op). Fixes: b5dc0163d8fd ("bpf: precise scalar_value tracking") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <mmahmoud@redhat.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87jzrrwptf.fsf@toke.dk Tested-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> Tested-by: Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231102053913.12004-2-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 7473544d7e04..74e9109b4c18 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -1890,7 +1890,12 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, if (class == BPF_ALU || class == BPF_ALU64) { if (!(*reg_mask & dreg)) return 0; - if (opcode == BPF_MOV) { + if (opcode == BPF_END || opcode == BPF_NEG) { + /* sreg is reserved and unused + * dreg still need precision before this insn + */ + return 0; + } else if (opcode == BPF_MOV) { if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) == BPF_X) { /* dreg = sreg * dreg needs precision after this insn -- 2.34.1
反馈： 您发送到kernel@openeuler.org的补丁/补丁集，已成功转换为PR！ PR链接地址： https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/pulls/13271 邮件列表地址：https://mailweb.openeuler.org/hyperkitty/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/K... FeedBack: The patch(es) which you have sent to kernel@openeuler.org mailing list has been converted to a pull request successfully! Pull request link: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/pulls/13271 Mailing list address: https://mailweb.openeuler.org/hyperkitty/list/kernel@openeuler.org/message/K...
participants (2)
-
patchwork bot -
Pu Lehui