All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in raw mode
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:21:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <62c7ec9d-0257-0f35-1c2d-eca59308ccb5@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ac90247f2ef390966fd4629cfc1bf1c41eaed789.1554236245.git.rdna@fb.com>

On 04/02/2019 10:19 PM, Andrey Ignatov wrote:
> It's hard to guarantee that whole memory is marked as initialized on
> helper return if uninitialized stack is accessed with variable offset
> since specific bounds are unknown to verifier. This may cause
> uninitialized stack leaking.
> 
> Reject such an access in check_stack_boundary to prevent possible
> leaking.
> 
> There are no known use-cases for indirect uninitialized stack access
> with variable offset so it shouldn't break anything.
> 
> Fixes: 2011fccfb61b ("bpf: Support variable offset stack access from helpers")
> Reported-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index b7a7a9caa82f..12b84307ffa8 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -2212,7 +2212,26 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
>  					     zero_size_allowed);
>  		if (err)
>  			return err;
> +		if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> +			meta->access_size = access_size;
> +			meta->regno = regno;
> +			return 0;
> +		}
>  	} else {
> +		/* Only initialized buffer on stack is allowed to be accessed
> +		 * with variable offset. With uninitialized buffer it's hard to
> +		 * guarantee that whole memory is marked as initialized on
> +		 * helper return since specific bounds are unknown what may
> +		 * cause uninitialized stack leaking.
> +		 */
> +		if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> +			char tn_buf[48];
> +
> +			tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
> +			verbose(env, "R%d invalid indirect access to uninitialized stack var_off=%s\n",
> +				regno, tn_buf);
> +			return -EACCES;
> +		}

Hmm, I think we should probably handle this in similar way like we do
in case of variable stack access when it comes to stack size:

               if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
                        /* For unprivileged variable accesses, disable raw
                         * mode so that the program is required to
                         * initialize all the memory that the helper could
                         * just partially fill up.
                         */
                        meta = NULL;

So we error out naturally on the loop later where we also mark for
liveness, and also allow for more flexibility if we know stack must
already be initialized in this range.

>  		min_off = reg->smin_value + reg->off;
>  		max_off = reg->umax_value + reg->off;
>  		err = __check_stack_boundary(env, regno, min_off, access_size,
> @@ -2225,12 +2244,6 @@ static int check_stack_boundary(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
>  			return err;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (meta && meta->raw_mode) {
> -		meta->access_size = access_size;
> -		meta->regno = regno;
> -		return 0;
> -	}

This can then also stay as-is.

>  	for (i = min_off; i < max_off + access_size; i++) {
>  		u8 *stype;
>  
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-03 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-02 20:19 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Fix indirect var_off stack access support Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-02 20:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in raw mode Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-03 16:21   ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2019-04-03 16:45     ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-04-03 21:57       ` Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-03 23:18         ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-04-04  1:02           ` Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-03 21:02     ` Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-03 22:31       ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-04-02 20:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: Test " Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-02 20:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] bpf: Reject indirect var_off stack access in unpriv mode Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-02 20:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selftests/bpf: Test " Andrey Ignatov
2019-04-02 20:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] bpf: Add missed newline in verifier verbose log Andrey Ignatov

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=62c7ec9d-0257-0f35-1c2d-eca59308ccb5@iogearbox.net \
    --to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rdna@fb.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.