[PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: prevent r10 register from being marked as precise

[PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: prevent r10 register from being marked as precise

[Andrii Nakryiko]

r10 is a special register that is not under BPF program's control and is
always effectively precise. The rest of precision logic assumes that
only r0-r9 SCALAR registers are marked as precise, so prevent r10 from
being marked precise.

This can happen due to signed cast instruction allowing to do something
like `r0 = (s8)r10;`, which later, if r0 needs to be precise, would lead
to an attempt to mark r10 as precise.

Prevent this with an extra check during instruction backtracking.

Fixes: 8100928c8814 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
Reported-by: syzbot+148110ee7cf72f39f33e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index ffaa9f7f153c..41446bea8fab 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3615,7 +3615,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 				 * sreg needs precision before this insn
 				 */
 				bt_clear_reg(bt, dreg);
-				bt_set_reg(bt, sreg);
+				if (sreg != BPF_REG_FP)
+					bt_set_reg(bt, sreg);
 			} else {
 				/* dreg = K
 				 * dreg needs precision after this insn.
@@ -3631,7 +3632,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 				 * both dreg and sreg need precision
 				 * before this insn
 				 */
-				bt_set_reg(bt, sreg);
+				if (sreg != BPF_REG_FP)
+					bt_set_reg(bt, sreg);
 			} /* else dreg += K
 			   * dreg still needs precision before this insn
 			   */
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add fp-leaking precise subprog result tests

[Andrii Nakryiko]

Add selftests validating that BPF verifier handles precision marking
for SCALAR registers derived from r10 (fp) register correctly.

Given `r0 = (s8)r10;` syntax is not supported by older Clang compilers,
use the raw BPF instruction syntax to maximize compatibility.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
 tools/include/linux/filter.h                  | 18 ++++
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c    | 89 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 107 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/include/linux/filter.h b/tools/include/linux/filter.h
index 736bdeccdfe4..65aa8ce142e5 100644
--- a/tools/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/tools/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -111,6 +111,24 @@
 		.off   = 0,					\
 		.imm   = IMM })
 
+/* Short form of movsx, dst_reg = (s8,s16,s32)src_reg */
+
+#define BPF_MOVSX64_REG(DST, SRC, OFF)				\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X,		\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = OFF,					\
+		.imm   = 0 })
+
+#define BPF_MOVSX32_REG(DST, SRC, OFF)				\
+	((struct bpf_insn) {					\
+		.code  = BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X,		\
+		.dst_reg = DST,					\
+		.src_reg = SRC,					\
+		.off   = OFF,					\
+		.imm   = 0 })
+
 /* Short form of mov based on type,  BPF_X: dst_reg = src_reg, BPF_K: dst_reg = imm32 */
 
 #define BPF_MOV64_RAW(TYPE, DST, SRC, IMM)			\
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
index 6f5d19665cf6..4a58e0398e72 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include <linux/bpf.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
 #include "bpf_misc.h"
+#include <../../../tools/include/linux/filter.h>
 
 #define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof(x[0]))
 
@@ -76,6 +77,94 @@ __naked int subprog_result_precise(void)
 	);
 }
 
+__naked __noinline __used
+static unsigned long fp_leaking_subprog()
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		".8byte %[r0_eq_r10_cast_s8];"
+		"exit;"
+		:: __imm_insn(r0_eq_r10_cast_s8, BPF_MOVSX64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, 8))
+	);
+}
+
+__naked __noinline __used
+static unsigned long sneaky_fp_leaking_subprog()
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"r1 = r10;"
+		".8byte %[r0_eq_r1_cast_s8];"
+		"exit;"
+		:: __imm_insn(r0_eq_r1_cast_s8, BPF_MOVSX64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 8))
+	);
+}
+
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("6: (0f) r1 += r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 5: (bf) r1 = r6")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (27) r0 *= 4")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 3: (57) r0 &= 3")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 10: (95) exit")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 9: (bf) r0 = (s8)r10")
+__msg("7: R0_w=scalar")
+__naked int fp_precise_subprog_result(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"call fp_leaking_subprog;"
+		/* use subprog's returned value (which is derived from r10=fp
+		 * register), as index into vals array, forcing all of that to
+		 * be known precisely
+		 */
+		"r0 &= 3;"
+		"r0 *= 4;"
+		"r1 = %[vals];"
+		/* force precision marking */
+		"r1 += r0;"
+		"r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0);"
+		"exit;"
+		:
+		: __imm_ptr(vals)
+		: __clobber_common
+	);
+}
+
+SEC("?raw_tp")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("6: (0f) r1 += r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 6 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 5: (bf) r1 = r6")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 4: (27) r0 *= 4")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 3: (57) r0 &= 3")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 11: (95) exit")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r0 stack= before 10: (bf) r0 = (s8)r1")
+/* here r1 is marked precise, even though it's fp register, but that's fine
+ * because by the time we get out of subprogram it has to be derived from r10
+ * anyways, at which point we'll break precision chain
+ */
+__msg("mark_precise: frame1: regs=r1 stack= before 9: (bf) r1 = r10")
+__msg("7: R0_w=scalar")
+__naked int sneaky_fp_precise_subprog_result(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"call sneaky_fp_leaking_subprog;"
+		/* use subprog's returned value (which is derived from r10=fp
+		 * register), as index into vals array, forcing all of that to
+		 * be known precisely
+		 */
+		"r0 &= 3;"
+		"r0 *= 4;"
+		"r1 = %[vals];"
+		/* force precision marking */
+		"r1 += r0;"
+		"r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0);"
+		"exit;"
+		:
+		: __imm_ptr(vals)
+		: __clobber_common
+	);
+}
+
 SEC("?raw_tp")
 __success __log_level(2)
 __msg("9: (0f) r1 += r0")
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: prevent r10 register from being marked as precise

[Yonghong Song]

On 4/4/24 2:45 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> r10 is a special register that is not under BPF program's control and is
> always effectively precise. The rest of precision logic assumes that
> only r0-r9 SCALAR registers are marked as precise, so prevent r10 from
> being marked precise.
>
> This can happen due to signed cast instruction allowing to do something
> like `r0 = (s8)r10;`, which later, if r0 needs to be precise, would lead
> to an attempt to mark r10 as precise.
>
> Prevent this with an extra check during instruction backtracking.
>
> Fixes: 8100928c8814 ("bpf: Support new sign-extension mov insns")
> Reported-by: syzbot+148110ee7cf72f39f33e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>

Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add fp-leaking precise subprog result tests

[Yonghong Song]

On 4/4/24 2:45 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Add selftests validating that BPF verifier handles precision marking
> for SCALAR registers derived from r10 (fp) register correctly.
>
> Given `r0 = (s8)r10;` syntax is not supported by older Clang compilers,
> use the raw BPF instruction syntax to maximize compatibility.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>

Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: prevent r10 register from being marked as precise

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Thu,  4 Apr 2024 14:45:35 -0700 you wrote:
> r10 is a special register that is not under BPF program's control and is
> always effectively precise. The rest of precision logic assumes that
> only r0-r9 SCALAR registers are marked as precise, so prevent r10 from
> being marked precise.
> 
> This can happen due to signed cast instruction allowing to do something
> like `r0 = (s8)r10;`, which later, if r0 needs to be precise, would lead
> to an attempt to mark r10 as precise.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [v2,bpf-next,1/2] bpf: prevent r10 register from being marked as precise
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/1f2a74b41ea8
  - [v2,bpf-next,2/2] selftests/bpf: add fp-leaking precise subprog result tests
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/343ca8131c35

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html