bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Use pointer type whitelist for XADD
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:11:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416211116.qxqcza5vo2ddnkdq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415204743.206086-1-jannh@google.com>

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:47:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> At the moment, check_xadd() uses a blacklist to decide whether a given
> pointer type should be usable with the XADD instruction. Out of all the
> pointer types that check_mem_access() accepts, only four are currently let
> through by check_xadd():
> 
> PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE
> PTR_TO_CTX           rejected
> PTR_TO_STACK
> PTR_TO_PACKET        rejected
> PTR_TO_PACKET_META   rejected
> PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS     rejected
> PTR_TO_SOCKET        rejected
> PTR_TO_SOCK_COMMON   rejected
> PTR_TO_TCP_SOCK      rejected
> PTR_TO_XDP_SOCK      rejected
> PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID
> 
> Looking at the currently permitted ones:
> 
>  - PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE: This makes sense and is the primary usecase for XADD.
>  - PTR_TO_STACK: This doesn't make much sense, there is no concurrency on
>    the BPF stack. It also causes confusion further down, because the first
>    check_mem_access() won't check whether the stack slot being read from is
>    STACK_SPILL and the second check_mem_access() assumes in
>    check_stack_write() that the value being written is a normal scalar.
>    This means that unprivileged users can leak kernel pointers.
>  - PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER: This is a local output buffer without concurrency.
>  - PTR_TO_BTF_ID: This is read-only, XADD can't work. When the verifier
>    tries to verify XADD on such memory, the first check_ptr_to_btf_access()
>    invocation gets confused by value_regno not being a valid array index
>    and writes to out-of-bounds memory.

> Limit XADD to PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, since everything else at least doesn't make
> sense, and is sometimes broken on top of that.
> 
> Fixes: 17a5267067f3 ("bpf: verifier (add verifier core)")
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> ---
> I'm just sending this on the public list, since the worst-case impact for
> non-root users is leaking kernel pointers to userspace. In a context where
> you can reach BPF (no sandboxing), I don't think that kernel ASLR is very
> effective at the moment anyway.
> 
> This breaks ten unit tests that assume that XADD is possible on the stack,
> and I'm not sure how all of them should be fixed up; I'd appreciate it if
> someone else could figure out how to fix them. I think some of them might
> be using XADD to cast pointers to numbers, or something like that? But I'm
> not sure.
> 
> Or is XADD on the stack actually something you want to support for some
> reason, meaning that that part would have to be fixed differently?

yeah. 'doesnt make sense' is relative.
I prefer to fix the issues instead of disabling them.
xadd to PTR_TO_STACK, PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER, PTR_TO_BTF_ID should all work
because they are direct pointers to objects.
Unlike pointer to ctx and flow_key that will be rewritten and are not
direct pointers.

Short term I think it's fine to disable PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER because
prog breakage is unlikely (if it's actually broken which I'm not sure yet).
But PTR_TO_BTF_ID and PTR_TO_STACK should be fixed.
The former could be used in bpf-tcp-cc progs. I don't think it is now,
but it's certainly conceivable.
PTR_TO_STACK should continue to work because tests are using it.
'but stack has no concurrency' is not an excuse to break tests.

Also I don't understand why you're saying that PTR_TO_STACK xadd is leaking.
The first check_mem_access() will check for STACK_SPILL afaics.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-04-16 21:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-15 20:47 Jann Horn
2020-04-16 20:52 ` Song Liu
2020-04-16 21:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-04-16 22:34   ` Jann Horn
2020-04-17  0:41     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-04-17  1:39       ` Jann Horn
2020-04-17  2:07         ` Alexei Starovoitov

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=20200416211116.qxqcza5vo2ddnkdq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andriin@fb.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=yhs@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Use pointer type whitelist for XADD' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).