From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, liulin063@gmail.com,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/4] bpf: Fix insufficient bounds propagation from adjust_scalar_min_max_vals
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:47:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220701124727.11153-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Kuee reported a corner case where the tnum becomes constant after the call
to __reg_bound_offset(), but the register's bounds are not, that is, its
min bounds are still not equal to the register's max bounds.
This in turn allows to leak pointers through turning a pointer register as
is into an unknown scalar via adjust_ptr_min_max_vals().
Before:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
What can be seen here is that R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff;
0x8000)) after the operation R3 += -32767 results in a 'malformed' constant, that
is, R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)). Intersecting with var_off has
not been done at that point via __update_reg_bounds(), which would have improved
the umax to be equal to umin.
Refactor the tnum <> min/max bounds information flow into a reg_bounds_sync()
helper and use it consistently everywhere. After the fix, bounds have been
corrected to R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) and thus the register
is regarded as a 'proper' constant scalar of 0.
After:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
0: (b7) r0 = 1 ; R0_w=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0))
1: (b7) r3 = 0 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
2: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
3: (87) r3 = -r3 ; R3_w=scalar()
4: (47) r3 |= 32767 ; R3_w=scalar(smin=-9223372036854743041,umin=32767,var_off=(0x7fff; 0xffffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881)
5: (75) if r3 s>= 0x0 goto pc+1 ; R3_w=scalar(umin=9223372036854808575,var_off=(0x8000000000007fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
6: (95) exit
from 5 to 7: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
7: (d5) if r3 s<= 0x8000 goto pc+1 ; R3=scalar(umin=32769,umax=9223372036854775807,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x7fffffffffff8000),s32_min=-2147450881,u32_min=32767)
8: (95) exit
from 7 to 9: R0=scalar(imm=1,umin=1,umax=1,var_off=(0x1; 0x0)) R1=ctx(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R3=scalar(umin=32767,umax=32768,var_off=(0x7fff; 0x8000)) R10=fp(off=0,imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0))
9: (07) r3 += -32767 ; R3_w=scalar(imm=0,umax=0,var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) <--- [*]
10: (95) exit
Fixes: b03c9f9fdc37 ("bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values")
Reported-by: Kuee K1r0a <liulin063@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 72 ++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ec164b3c0fa2..0efbac0fd126 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -1562,6 +1562,21 @@ static void __reg_bound_offset(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->var_off = tnum_or(tnum_clear_subreg(var64_off), var32_off);
}
+static void reg_bounds_sync(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
+{
+ /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
+ __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
+ /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
+ __reg_bound_offset(reg);
+ /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
+ * slightly, e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
+ * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
+ */
+ __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+}
+
static bool __reg32_bound_s64(s32 a)
{
return a >= 0 && a <= S32_MAX;
@@ -1603,16 +1618,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_32_into_64(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
* so they do not impact tnum bounds calculation.
*/
__mark_reg64_unbounded(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
static bool __reg64_bound_s32(s64 a)
@@ -1628,7 +1635,6 @@ static bool __reg64_bound_u32(u64 a)
static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
{
__mark_reg32_unbounded(reg);
-
if (__reg64_bound_s32(reg->smin_value) && __reg64_bound_s32(reg->smax_value)) {
reg->s32_min_value = (s32)reg->smin_value;
reg->s32_max_value = (s32)reg->smax_value;
@@ -1637,14 +1643,7 @@ static void __reg_combine_64_into_32(struct bpf_reg_state *reg)
reg->u32_min_value = (u32)reg->umin_value;
reg->u32_max_value = (u32)reg->umax_value;
}
-
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(reg);
}
/* Mark a register as having a completely unknown (scalar) value. */
@@ -6943,9 +6942,7 @@ static void do_refine_retval_range(struct bpf_reg_state *regs, int ret_type,
ret_reg->s32_max_value = meta->msize_max_value;
ret_reg->smin_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
ret_reg->s32_min_value = -MAX_ERRNO;
- __reg_deduce_bounds(ret_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(ret_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(ret_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(ret_reg);
}
static int
@@ -8202,11 +8199,7 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (!check_reg_sane_offset(env, dst_reg, ptr_reg->type))
return -EINVAL;
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
-
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
if (sanitize_check_bounds(env, insn, dst_reg) < 0)
return -EACCES;
if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
@@ -8944,10 +8937,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
/* ALU32 ops are zero extended into 64bit register */
if (alu32)
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
return 0;
}
@@ -9136,10 +9126,7 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
insn->dst_reg);
}
zext_32_to_64(dst_reg);
-
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
} else {
/* case: R = imm
@@ -9742,21 +9729,8 @@ static void __reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *src_reg,
dst_reg->smax_value);
src_reg->var_off = dst_reg->var_off = tnum_intersect(src_reg->var_off,
dst_reg->var_off);
- /* We might have learned new bounds from the var_off. */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned something about the sign bit. */
- __reg_deduce_bounds(src_reg);
- __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg);
- /* We might have learned some bits from the bounds. */
- __reg_bound_offset(src_reg);
- __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg);
- /* Intersecting with the old var_off might have improved our bounds
- * slightly. e.g. if umax was 0x7f...f and var_off was (0; 0xf...fc),
- * then new var_off is (0; 0x7f...fc) which improves our umax.
- */
- __update_reg_bounds(src_reg);
- __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(src_reg);
+ reg_bounds_sync(dst_reg);
}
static void reg_combine_min_max(struct bpf_reg_state *true_src,
--
2.27.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-01 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-01 12:47 [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around jmp32's jeq/jne Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 12:47 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2022-07-01 12:47 ` [PATCH bpf 3/4] bpf, selftests: Add verifier test case for imm=0,umin=0,umax=1 scalar Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 12:47 ` [PATCH bpf 4/4] bpf, selftests: Add verifier test case for jmp32's jeq/jne Daniel Borkmann
2022-07-01 20:10 ` [PATCH bpf 1/4] bpf: Fix incorrect verifier simulation around " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220701124727.11153-2-daniel@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=liulin063@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.